CC0 might be very long but in my opinion it&#x27;s the better choice for creative work that is not Software. MIT and BSD specifically mention &quot;software&quot; and&#x2F;or &quot;documentation&quot; and might not apply to other works in some legislation.<p>Lines like &quot;dedicated to the public domain, no rights reserved&quot; would be problematic as well since it is not always possible to give up all rights or the concept of public domain might not even exist (now or in the future) in your local law system.<p>I take a similar approach to licensing as I do with cryptography: Don&#x27;t write your own crypto&#x2F;legal. Stick to what has been tested, accepted and is in wide use in your targeted domain.<p>Slightly OT: I think it&#x27;s sad that some part of the tech community thinks about the law as artificial and unneeded and flat out refuses to deal with it. Reality is that those rules are as real and as relevant to your software as are  algorithms and implementation details. Sticking your head in the sand won&#x27;t make this problem go away.<p>PS: If one demands from lawmakers to learn about technology development than one should also be willing to learn about legal development as well.