The problem you haven't noticed is that the language covering what you care about, using Shen to write programs, is in many places (potentially at least 7 by a count I just made), and you, or, say a lawyer for your company, has to read and understand the whole huge thing to make sure your intended use is OK. And that the multiple times it tries to say the same thing are not ambiguous.
It's also explicitly not open source ("We are therefore not open source."), and should you find yourself needing to fix a bug in a language implementation your legal burden massively increases.
Compare this to the licenses you name, they're all well understood, and in at least some cases validated in court. For that matter, the GPL has been validated in at least US and German courts.
As for Ocaml, it uses the Q Public License (as well as the LGPL); it's short and a quick glance didn't indicate it tries to say the same thing more than once. It's been around for a while, to the point it's an OSI and FSF approved licence, so others have looked at it, as they did for Qt prior to version 4.0., and KDE based on it prior to then. About which there was much todo, so it's be thoroughly analyzed.
So it may be "weird", but it's significantly more palatable than Shen's license.
