open source licenses are just magic protective wards, so it stands to reason that if you apply all of the OSI approved open source licenses to your work then you will be maximally protected

I had an idea for a chaos license the other year called the "If-You-Have-To-Ask-The-Answer-Is-No Public License" and if you open the license file it just says "no". I figure the goal would be to scare off the kind of people with agendas that require legal teams, but I've yet to feel the need to put it on anything.

I figure these are the kinds of code I post publicly on the internet:

1. It would be obscene to consider this code under copyright and yet somehow it is. E.g. math, example code, etc.

2. I wrote an absolute behemoth of a program. I would be elated if you did anything with it at all. Please don't sue me for writing original software and giving it away for free on the internet.

3. I can't be bothered to consider licensing (half baked napkin scribbles tossed on github to link to discord chat)

I usually use APL2 for the code in case 2, because it seems mostly in line with my intentions, it seems like it is meant to apply automatically if someone submits a contribution to the project, and it doesn't scare off evil corporations from exploiting my labor by making games with the thing I want people to make games with oh noo lol.

The code in case 3 is easy, I just don't bother putting a license on it until I think I need it.