Consider this license I wrote for my software:
Copyright 2014, [my name]
The author(s) of this software intends to provide the users with the
maximum amount of freedom. As such, this software may be used under
any one of the following licenses:
1. MIT: [link to the license]
2. Apache 2.0: [link to the license]
3. BSD 2-clause: [link to the license]
4. BSD 3-clause: [link to the license]
Or, it can be considered released into the public domain in jurisdictions
where this is possible.
In any case, the software comes with absolutely no warranty.
Do you guys see any potential problems with this licence, especially from a legal point of view? Does it succeed in providing the users with the maximum amount of freedom?
Not being lawyers, we can’t give legal advise here.
What strikes me most in your license is the apparent contradiction that you start with Copyright 2014, [me] and also try to release the work into the public domain (which means that no copyright claims will be made).
Furthermore, providing multiple compatible permissive licenses to choose from does not really give me more rights than if you just choose one of them, but it does increase the amount of boilerplate legal text that needs to be included in each file.
It is far better to choose just one license with your software (which can be a public domain dedication). If you want to give as much freedom as possible, then I would recommend the MIT or 2-clause BSD license, or the Creative Commons CC0 if you want to release your software into the public domain.
Dual-licensing is mostly useful if you have common parts to two projects that use different licenses, or if you want to allow the use in closed-source applications only for paying customers (by using a dual license of GPL and closed-source)
3