My view is that all these, ah, parameters for licensing - what is or is not, copyright, public domain existing in some countries and not others, etc, etc - none

My view is that all these, ah, parameters for licensing - what is or is not, copyright, public domain existing in some countries and not others, etc, etc - none of these are things I have chosen. They are being imposed upon me. This is not okay. I feel no need to go along with it all, just because other entities force it upon me. This is why I say license-free. It is rejection of these imposed parameters. I know what I want here - for other people to be able to use the library as they wish for whatever they wish, simple as that. No charges, no catches, go use it. However, in practise, companies and individuals must abide by all this stuff, and so you see about the code being in the public domain, a license of your choice being granted if you wish for one, etc. This is to address the practical problems involved. Regarding public domain, I think you've overlooked where it is explicitly placed in the public domain - it's the end of a couple of sentences, so it's understandable; "If however for legal reasons a licence is required, the license of your choice will be granted, and license is hereby granted up front for a range of popular licenses : the MIT license, the BSD license, the Apache license, the GPL and LPGL (all versions thereof) and the Creative Commons licenses (all of them). Additionally, everything is also placed in the public domain."