Just a guess, but maybe so they can reliable hash it?

That says a lot about you, but is, in itself, not a very useful contribution to the discussion.

So, what is the alternative? What am i supposed to do if I think there is no license that deals satisfactory with the problems I have, and I'm can't create a new one, because, well, it makes things a bit less straightforward for my users?

One alternative, for the author, would have been to mention it. Address it, even.

To me, it's not really proliferation if the license addresses issues no other license addresses. Just because it adds one or more licenses to the number of existing licenses, doesn't mean those licenses should not exist.

Also, as a developer I think choice is good. If users have to do a bit more work to figure out whether they can or want to use code because of its license then that is unfortunate, but not too much to ask.

Why exactly do you think writing such a new license is doing more harm than good?

It might benefit the author, a little, but it imposes new costs on everybody else.

I guess that's where we disagree. I think the existence of such a license might be -- in some cases -- the one thing that motivates the author to create a project in the first place (its for me, anyway). And I don't think open-source has any obligation to come with 'no cost' for its users.

Reading (and respecting) its license is the least one can do when using somebody elses code. If that takes time, then one just has to factor that in when deciding whether to re-use someone elses code or not.

I guess that threshold is different for everybody, who's to say what works best in a certain situation?