Having been a member of a very high profile permissively licensed project and having started a few relatively popular ones of my own, I’d say I don’t need to take licensing advice or be called “does not know how to use OSS licenses” from someone who laughably advises using Creative Commons, when Creative Commons itself advises against using CC licenses for source code, except CC0, which is entirely different from CC.
I was considering not replying, but here goes nothing....
> not because I will personally pursue every clause in it.
Then you are out of the game, because all clauses should be respected, or else you are committing something very close to an illegality when you violate said clauses. If you don't want a specific clause, consult a lawyer and remove it, or use another license.
> Creative Commons itself advises against using CC licenses for source code
So before your didn't care about respecting clauses and now you do?
I could argue: there are some bits of text in CC that make it not a good license for code, but I don't care because I don't respect those clauses. I'm not going to make that argument, because it doesn't make any sense. You either use a license and respect it or you don't.
Creative commons maybe.
Just because you, as someone who self proclaimed to have done more OSS than 95% of the commenters here, does not know how to use OSS licenses, doesn't mean that the copyright question being discussed here is a non issue.
The issue is that you don't care about what the licenses in your code mean:
> I publish my code under MIT when possible (...) please train on my work or split out my functions verbatim (...) I don’t even care about the attribution part of MIT