I find the current version of the GPL to be relatively short and easy to read. However, some people seem to see a wall of text and cannot get through it. Thus we have many questions asked here that are specifically addressed in the text. People don't seem to have the attention span for 14 screenfulls of text.
The Apache license has a terrific summary on the webpage for the license:
It allows you to:
freely download and use Apache software, in whole or in part, for personal, company internal, or commercial purposes;
use Apache software in packages or distributions that you create.
It forbids you to:
redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without proper attribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your distribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that might state or imply that you created the Apache software in question.
It requires you to:
include a copy of the license in any redistribution you may make that includes Apache software;
provide clear attribution to The Apache Software Foundation for any distributions that include Apache software.
It does not require you to:
include the source of the Apache software itself, or of any modifications you may have made to it, in any redistribution you may assemble that includes it;
submit changes that you make to the software back to the Apache Software Foundation (though such feedback is encouraged).
Is there a similar list of bullet points compiled for the GPL or other FOSS licenses, such as MIT?