> Maybe I'll even use a non-free license just to reinforce my "you take what you can get" policy.
Consider CC0 instead.
As a veteran open source contributor, I totally understand that dealing with open source communities has a huge cost to go with the huge benefit. Even just vetting patches can be a pain when you care about security and architecture and don't want to spend time endlessly explaining your choices.
CC0 allows you to provide maximum benefit should you opt out of "social coding". People can go ahead and fork your stuff, or just use bits and pieces, without needing to deal with licensing or crediting headaches. (Significant consumers still have to track provenance, though.)
What is your objection? Do we have a disagreement about licensing, for instance because you'd advocate a copyleft license instead? Or do you disagree with the notion that open source contributors should have the option of opting out of social coding?
Certainly I would expect amyjess and anyone else reading to exercise due skepticism and perform their own research and I respect them enough to expect that they will "consider" my suggestion rather than "blindly" follow it.
I think people shouldn't ill-informedly attempt to waive their legal rights, especially not in ways that are legally murky, and I think people shouldn't ill-informedly encourage others to waive legal rights in murky ways they may not be aware of. You didn't even mention "public domain" once and implied "CC0" was a form of license, despite attempting a public domain dedication being a very different thing from licensing copyrighted works.
Well, for jurisdictions where dedication to the public domain is not possible, CC0 includes a fallback license. I suppose I could have used the words "public domain", and that would have made the intention clearer — so thank you for raising that point. However, if you are going to do a public domain dedication, you really should use CC0!
PS: Why assume everyone is "ill-informed"? We're all learning together forever: you, me, amyjess, other readers...
Consider CC0 instead.
As a veteran open source contributor, I totally understand that dealing with open source communities has a huge cost to go with the huge benefit. Even just vetting patches can be a pain when you care about security and architecture and don't want to spend time endlessly explaining your choices.
CC0 allows you to provide maximum benefit should you opt out of "social coding". People can go ahead and fork your stuff, or just use bits and pieces, without needing to deal with licensing or crediting headaches. (Significant consumers still have to track provenance, though.)