Wondering what all the fuss in this thread was about I decided to take a quick peek at the WebApp site. Contrary to what you and others have said the license is not.

1. Accessible from the main site, rather (as mr_mischief notes) one needs to click on a tiny link at the bottom of the page which leads to the WebApp build used to display the current site to find it. I suggest you do find a more prominent place to put it.
2. The GPL, nor anything even closely resembling it. It's called the "Webapp O/S OpenSource License" and from my reading (IANAL) does not qualify the software as free software or even Open Source. Main reasons are that the license does not expressly allow modification of the source code (it does allow redistribution of modified code, but the two are different AFAIK), the requirement to prominently display attribution at program install and the "disclaimer" saying that parts of the program may be copyright of individual authors and under a different license. If you feel that I am wrong and that this license is indeed a free software license I would encourage you to contact the Free Software Foundation and ask them to classify your license as such (they are considered a bit of an authority on the subject by many people and know far more about license matters than me and almost certainly also more than the author of the WebApp license, which I must say generally gives the appearance of being very poorly written).

Other remarks I can make about my short experience with WebApp (No need for anyone to respond to these, I have no interest in discussing them, just pointing out in the case they are helpful):

• Automatic popups are evil, just don't! If the first thing I get when opening a page is a js popup which doesn't even render correctly on my preferred browser (Konqueror 3.5.5), I am immediately inclined to leave. The warning you have there could just as well be put at the top of the page.
• The site displays text in the language my browser is set to automatically. Unfortunately the translation is horrible (looks like Babelfish) and makes it utterly impossible to understand what you are trying to say.
• The comments given by apparent WebApp afficionados in this thread all appear to be needlessly aggressive and impolite. Marketing is good, aggressive marketing like this turns people off.

All that being said, I wish the project well and hope that it turns into a truly free killer Perl CMS :-)

1. False. There is no mention of the license for WebAPP in the footer of the page that was linked. Not a license nor a link to one is there. Did these "piratical spinoff sites" actually remove your copyright notices or change the license terms?
2. The W3 validator did clear the site today when I went back. Kudos.
3. I don't want to be your marketing statistic just for looking over the code. There's no reason I can't download the code and look over it other than that you want me to register first. Why in the world would I download it from SourceForge when your community repeatedly throughout the site says to only download it from web-app.net?
4. The issue is that you're blaming all sorts of issues on "piratical spinoff sites" using pre-1.0 versions, yet your own site put out buggy, security-broken pre-1.0 versions. Is your unsubstantiated claim to have the most secure CMS supposed to mean something? If I put it up against Typo3, Movable Type, OpenCMS, and Mambo in an open cracking invitational will it really be the last to fall? Are people really pirates for releasing a branch of your open source code? If you released buggy pre-1.0 code and they copied it, are the bugs yours or theirs? If they copy or branch 1.0 will they not be "bug-riddled piratical spin-offs"? Are they a problem because they're pirates or because they're using the code you supplied the community and they just haven't upgraded yet? Should you be attacking them ad hominem or should you be suggesting that people stay up to date with the main branch?
5. You don't just have issues. You have delusions. The last version had hundreds of bugs, but the new version fixes every single one of them? Is that realistic?

You're writing open-source code you don't want anyone to redistribute. You judge for others when it's alright to give up their personal information for your use (without so much as a privacy policy I can see). You claim to be all-knowledgeable about CMSes, yet most of your posts here lack any type of HTML formatting. You make accusations against people that I've yet to see backed up, then you waffle on why getting the code from them is bad.

You can say whatever you want about how wonderful your code and your community are, but I've yet to be convinced and now I likely won't be.