I've had thoughts about the "rule vs. standard" question but I haven't been able to reach any conclusion, so I'll just throw them out there.
My first thought was that the appeal of a rules-based license is that it is the form probably preferred by people who write code because it most closely fits with how they process a decision tree. So I expect it will be more appealing from a license-adoption standpoint. But others have described the flaws; to me lack of flexibility in changing circumstances and the high likelihood of silly results if no common sense is applied are the two most important.
The problem with the standard- based license is that it requires much more trust that the enforcer will be reasonable and not stretch ambiguous boundaries too far. But when you have a license that is perceived as ideologically-based, then there will naturally be a fear of over-enforcement. So what you're inhibiting is the adoption of the software, even by those of good intention. Perhaps the FAQs will be a partial solution, they can at least explain in more detail what the intent was and perhaps provide a governor on over-enforcement.
So I think it depends on what your goals are, and if you want copyleft software to be more widely-disseminated you have to find a way to provide reassurance that the enforcement will be forgiving of human error, ambiguity, and the differing of reasonable minds.