how v3 is much much simpler (after taking a hit from the crack pipe)

At least I could understand the license in *one* country with v2..

> "Propagate" and "convey" were chosen specifically because they have no
> existing meanings with regard to software. This means that the licence can
> explain the intended meaning.

I wish it did explain the intended meaning. Have you understood the intended meaning and difference between "propagate" and "convey"? I still fail to clearly see a difference and the GPL FAQ obscures the point further.

> So I just read the licence. The licence *text* itself is more complex,
> but overall, knowing what the licence really means is much much easier.

This is a contradiction. A complex text, by its nature, lends itself more to different interpretations than a clear and simple one. How can you now be sure that your interpretation is the intended one? And who guarantees that a judge will not disagree?

But the main problem remains: The target audience seems to have shifted from laypersons to experts in reading legalese. This is very sad and counterproductive. I myself will not release code under v3 for the foreseeable future and will not suggest using v3 to anybody, maybe even recommend to stay away from it when asked for licensing advice. I bet I am far from the only person that thinks so and I do not see people around me rushing to adopt v3, on the contrary. This cannot have been what the authors of v3 had in mind.

I shudder when I think what v4 or v5 might look like...