> MIT/GPL/CC0 There's (many) different licenses - for a reason. If someone makes a small game, wants users to enjoy all the freedoms its developer had, but do

> MIT/GPL/CC0 There's (many) different licenses - for a reason. If someone makes a small game, wants users to enjoy all the freedoms its developer had, but does not want random 3rd party to include it in a product without telling their users about that, use a GPL style license. If someone is working on a network protocol, an image format, or audio/video codec, and have that go everywhere to become a defacto standard is more important than other considerations, go for a BSD/MIT style license. Some vendors don't mind their users looking under the hood. But still want to retain control. Enter 'shared source' (=not open source) or dual licensing (eg. free for non-commercial use, commercial users: pay up). Documentation is different. So is hardware. If you're a developer (or vendor): think about this, and pick appropriate license. Just don't complain when you did open source something, and a 3rd party runs with it.