When I write for an ecosystem (e.g. a plugin for some tool, or a lib specific to a given toolkit/framework) and don't really care, I just adopt the same license as the thing I'm building upon/for.
For a Maven or Gradle plugin (and most Java projects) I pick up the Apache License, for a Go library the "New BSD 3-clause".
For bigger projects, I'd be more cautious. For Ozwillo and Ecometer (both applications), we selected the AGPL as it prevents others to "steal" your work and just resell it under another name. For iTowns (a library/toolkit), we selected the MIT (actually dual MIT and CeCILL-B, see below) as we wanted something very open that would specifically allow us to embed it within applications, including modified versions of it.
Also, in France, we have the CeCILL licenses. CeCILL, also called CeCILL-A, is pretty much like AGPL; CeCILL-B like BSD/MIT, and CeCILL-C like LGPL (as a mnemonic, I think of the C as standing for Component; so you have A-B-C ⇔ AGPL-BSD-Component). They're almost the same as those better-known license, except they're written with French laws in mind.
And in Europe, there's the EUPL which is similar to the AGPL (for EUPL 1.2, previous versions were GPL-alike).
Last, but not least, have a look at Contributor License Agreements in addition to licenses (most corps have one, the Apache Software Foundation and Eclipse Foundations have one, many other open source projects don't) :
When I write for an ecosystem (e.g. a plugin for some tool, or a lib specific to a given toolkit/framework) and don't really care, I just adopt the same license as the thing I'm building upon/for.
For a Maven or Gradle plugin (and most Java projects) I pick up the Apache License, for a Go library the "New BSD 3-clause".
For bigger projects, I'd be more cautious. For Ozwillo and Ecometer (both applications), we selected the AGPL as it prevents others to "steal" your work and just resell it under another name. For iTowns (a library/toolkit), we selected the MIT (actually dual MIT and CeCILL-B, see below) as we wanted something very open that would specifically allow us to embed it within applications, including modified versions of it.
Also, in France, we have the CeCILL licenses. CeCILL, also called CeCILL-A, is pretty much like AGPL; CeCILL-B like BSD/MIT, and CeCILL-C like LGPL (as a mnemonic, I think of the C as standing for Component; so you have A-B-C ⇔ AGPL-BSD-Component). They're almost the same as those better-known license, except they're written with French laws in mind.
And in Europe, there's the EUPL which is similar to the AGPL (for EUPL 1.2, previous versions were GPL-alike).
Last, but not least, have a look at Contributor License Agreements in addition to licenses (most corps have one, the Apache Software Foundation and Eclipse Foundations have one, many other open source projects don't) :