You speak as if "license proliferation" is actually a problem.
But is it really?
Sure, it may make some licenses incompatible with each other, but that's basically equivalent to whining about somebody releasing their code in GPL and it can't be used in a project that uses MIT...
And your argument that the terms are "less understood" really doesn't matter. It's not like people know the Common Public Attribution License in and out either. (I'm going to argue that 99% devs don't even know the GPL well.) Poor drafting could be an issue, but I don't think this is the case here.
And on an ideological standpoint, I don't think people should be shamed into releasing their code under terms they aren't 100% comfortable with.
You can totally use GPL code in a MIT-licensed project, by changing the license on the overall work to the GPL. What you can't do is, for example, use GPL code in a CDDL project, or vice versa. The Apache Foundation went through a whole long process to release the Apache License 2 when version 1 was found incompatible with the GPL. License proliferation can be a big deal. In this case it's undesirable but less of a problem. I think.
But is it really?
Sure, it may make some licenses incompatible with each other, but that's basically equivalent to whining about somebody releasing their code in GPL and it can't be used in a project that uses MIT...
And your argument that the terms are "less understood" really doesn't matter. It's not like people know the Common Public Attribution License in and out either. (I'm going to argue that 99% devs don't even know the GPL well.) Poor drafting could be an issue, but I don't think this is the case here.
And on an ideological standpoint, I don't think people should be shamed into releasing their code under terms they aren't 100% comfortable with.