Coming to a general conclusion on the topic of licensing and when it should be used is almost to the same extent of having Richard M. Stallman halt the reference of GNU/Linux and his supposed 'ownership'
Here, I hope to clarify the topic of licensing and give a description of the ones I primarily use.
MIT's License (2015)
This license is probably my favorite license to issue software under as it declares it free to be used anywhere without the creator being responsible for its outcome. This is extremely friendly to kangers that refuse to preserve authorship (unfortunately) however so it does have drawbacks.
*Completely and truly free
*The creator remains free of any charges regarding future issues
*Loose interpretations apply
*Anyone can kang the software without penalty
*It doesn't protect anything but the creator of the software
More info here: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
This is the most important license. It forces authorship and accreditation to be kept, the Linux kernel is licensed under it as well (v2 to be excact) as the majority of open source software, and it grants freedom on loos terms.
*If the software is filed under this license and shared with the public, the source must be public
*Kanging of the software except for private use is prohibited. Private is used loosely. FOr instance, you are not required to do so if it is shared between you and a limited group of people
*You can not be sued for patent infringement if you use software filed under this license
*It catalyzes the growth and development of the original project
*Companies are screwed over if it is implemented elsewhere
If you are an Android fanatic like me, you understand that Google files their open source software this license to protect themselves. HOWEVER, in the community itself there is a lot of groups that lash out at its use. This can be specifically seen between the conflict of SlimRoms and Substratum over the proper use of OMS, and who kanged who (which I won't get into, but in short, my opinion is Slim is in the right on this one)
*The changes made to the source must be logged somewhere
*A notice of the use of the license must be declared
*Protection of patents
*Companies can sue you if you decide to use the license competitively
*Just because changes must be logged does not mean that accreditation must carry over
*It does not in any way protect the user of the software. The license should be looked more so on declaring a product as a service and not an owned entity
*Contributors are not protected
More info: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Okay so that is a quick overview of how I interpret the licenses, and where I believe them to be used appropriately. It isn't great, but if you have anything to add, then just let me know
Have a great week! I will keep up with this topic and answer any questions you may have, and make changes as needed