Note: This document is work-in-progress. Please don’t publish it on news sites, or otherwise link to it in public without the author’s permission. Private linking is acceptable.
I personally accept the fact that some developers would like to use weak copyleft or strong copyleft licences for their works. However, I still prefer to use the MIT/Expat License for works that I originate and now I’d like to explain why:
The MIT/Expat License is short, simple, and easy to understand.
It is practically public domain which is what newcomers to the FOSS world innocently expect when they hear terms like “open-source” or “free-as-in-speech software”.
By using such permissive licences, one has much fewer worries on how people can violate one’s licence. While I commonly hear about GPL violations, I don’t ever recall hearing about a violation of a permissive, BSD-style licence.
The MIT X11 licence still gives one protection against litigation with its “NO WARRANTY” clause.
The MIT X11 licence is GPL-compatible, so it can be made useful to people who are using the GPL.
By using such a licence one can boast that one’s program is permissively-licensed / BSD-style-licensed.