I found out about [Unlicense](http://unlicense.org) only recently (probably about a month ago). When Github added a license option when creating a new repository, I noticed it. At the time I thought this was great and just what I was originally looking for. Since I felt just stating what I was going to release to be in the public domain was probably not the right way to go about it, it needs the legalese. So I had always just opted for a lax license instead.

I used it for one repo, but now I've been doing more research into donating to the public domain and I'm not sure if it's the best option. Since not all jurisdictions allow for things to be donated to the public domain (since some specify you cannot waive moral rights), and some don't even have a public domain. And looking at some big projects in the public domain like SQLite they still mention that some companies still won't use it unless it's actually licensed because lawyers don't believe that the authors specifying it to be under the public domain hold any real legal grounds (in other words, its waiver about making it be in the public domain means nothing and the project is still copyrighted and without a license they won't be able to use it). So in their case they offer a license for those that must have one.

So that's where the problem is for me, I would ideally like to release stuff into the public domain as the things I wish to release I want to be as open and flexible as possible, and for it to be easy to use and understand (licenses can be a little confusing at times). But if using something like Unlicense will actually make some people avoid it unlike a license (just a very lax one, so it still gives much the same rights to the receiver), then that becomes a problem and goes against what I want to happen. I see with [Creative Commons CC0](http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/.../legalcode) they use a license to fallback on if the waiver cannot be used. But using CC0 for source code seems to have mixed views. It also doesn't feel very appropriate to me for software usage as there's no clause releasing the author(s) of any liability.

The issue at the end of the day is I may use Unlicense but then I may additionally also need to include a fallback license and digitally sign the waiver. All of which just complicates the entire process. In which case I feel like I'd be better off from the beginning just using a lax license.

So what are your thoughts on all of this? The Unlicense project, releasing source code to the public domain, better alternatives, or if I've got anything wrong.