[pepoluan]

I made some open source software myself and my desire is to see my code used as widely as possible.

So the ONLY reasonable choice for me is to release my code with a non-viral license. A copyleft license is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE for me because it limits the reach of my software.

(My license of choice is MPL-2.0)

[matheusmoreira]

Have you thought about it? If you have given it serious thought and decided that this is what you want, then by all means, go ahead.

The problem is that people choose permissive licenses to be "nice" when the truth is they have tons of unwritten rules and hidden assumptions. Magical thinking like "if I publish this open source software then it will come back to me in some way, maybe a job, maybe a sponsorship." No such deal exists. Then they wake up one day with corporations making billions off of their software while they're not making even one cent, and they suddenly have a very public meltdown where they bitterly regret their decisions. I've seen it happen, even with copyleft licenses.

[tracker1]

When I publish something under MIT/ISC, it's generally, I wrote this to solve a problem/need, if anyone else finds it useful, cool. Use it for whatever you like.

If I'm writing something I intend or might intend to monetize later or otherwise don't want to have privatized, I'll probably reach for GPLv3, AGPL or a different license. The less "whole" a thing is, the more likely I'm going to use a more permissive license than not. Libraries or snippets of code are almost always going to be permissive at least from me. This includes relatively simple CLI utils.