@toast I usually do CC-0 for anything I can and Apache 2.0 for everything else — partially because Apache 2.0 satisfies the corporations who, more often than not, own the code I produce and partially because for all practical purposes Apache 2.0 might as well be public domain and in a lot of corporate environments Apache 2.0 is *easier* to adopt than something with a public domain dedication. In the end, licenses tend to only matter to corporations and other OSS projects, both of whom tend to prefer something simple like "Apache 2.0 is OK". Individuals don't care about license compliance because it's vanishingly unlikely that being out of compliance would hurt them.
To the extent that I own any code, I'm almost always willing to grant individual waivers of the requirements on request.
@toast And I'm not certain I'll have time to read a 10k word essay in a timely manner, but if you've got a distribution list I'm happy to be on it.
@toast To be honest, I think the OSI's mission is a lot more reasonable when you see it through the lens of "only corporations big enough to sue or be sued care about license compliance." The rest of us already live in the post-copyright anarchistic paradise where we'll use any source code or program we can get our hands on (except for me, obviously, I always abide by all copyright laws and sumptuary codes 😇).
The only time it really matters is if you may want it to end up in the supply chain of a corporation like that (which could in fact be your *own* corporation, two employers from now). In that case, having just a few standard licenses makes it a lot easier to analyze things and a lot cheaper for small companies to comply.
