But it's a CA, not a license. Surely people won't be signing a legal form based on its name? But having a guideline for CA's so that they are kept reasonably short and simple and reasonable readable seems like quite a bonus.
which is the CA needed to contribute to golang. Go is under a very liberal BSD-like license ("proprietary software in sheep's clothing", to use your language), so the options 1 and 2 would be harmless... and in fact all the options would be harmless, in that they wouldn't give Google any additional rights that the primary license doesn't also give them.
I prefer copyleft licenses, but have no strong objection to licenses that are more liberal, particularly if they're GPL compatible so that (in case of nuclear war) the community could retaliate to a proprietary fork with a GPL fork.