I've heard one report (from someone who couldn't back it up) that Ms-PL restricts use by other open source software of other licenses. I disagree with them, but neither of us were lawyers.
Most open source licenses including Ms-PL include as-is clauses.
I totally support not going with GPL or LGPL because that severely restricts your "freedom" to do with the software whatever you want. It's highly sided toward the "religion" of perpetual "free software" and not so much freedom. Not trying to flamebait, but it's a genuine concern.
Personally I chose Ms-PL because I share the same goals your question suggests you have and I felt Ms-PL fit the bill. I'm not in a position to promise correct legal interpretation, but it's my unprofessional opinion.
I do believe you are required to include the licenses/copyright notices in your own software redists based on the Ms-PL anyway, but you don't have to add new references to these licenses I believe. So I'd consider it enough if your LICENSE file included your own license, and the licenses of the other software your redist includes, mention to which files each license applies. And then don't recompile any of your dependencies to remove the copyright notices that may have been included in the compiled software.
