I am highly in favor of {,A,L}GPL licenses, but my new library will be Apache2. I would not release on MIT or BSD. Apache2 is not that different, but at least

I am highly in favor of {,A,L}GPL licenses, but my new library will be Apache2. I would not release on MIT or BSD. Apache2 is not that different, but at least has a patent clause. With MIT/BSD you are in "let's just hope" territory. Letting others change your license is saying you don't care about your work, but that's just my feeling. Each project has its own target, and should chose the licenses accordingly, but I don't see reason for bsd/mit over apache. My rule of the thumb is: * apache for software that needs to be linked to proprietary * LGPL for other library * AGPL/GPL depending on your stance on network connectivity, and if you don't care about scaring companies that don't read licenses. (funny how EULA are ok for those companies though) I would also like to see git hosting software (github, gitlab, gitea...) provide a checkbox to only accept contributions from people who agree on a CLA, and developers would only need a checkbox to agree to it. Otherwise you are going to be stuck with GPL2 like linux, and you can't fix things that might make sense in your environment, both as being more restrictive, and being less restrictive. People can always fork if you do bad things anyway.