You're missing a _technical_ reason for using a BSD/MIT license, and one that's been relied on to great effect: to promote use of a standard.
Apache was licensed under the BSD license in part due to philosophical preferences of its creators, but with the effect of promoting HTTP as a standard transport for online documents. Nobody had to ask for permission to use Apache, or to incorporate it into their own products (as IBM did).
Arguably the orginal use of the BSD license, to spread use of Berkeley Unix, achieved similar aims.
From the ideological standpoint:
* If your goal is to promote Free Software, use the GPL (or a variant with stronger ties to distribution for Web or online services).
* If your goal is to promote use of Free Software Libraries, in an environment where there are numerous non-free alternatives, the LGPL has benefits.
* If your goal is to promote use of an open standard, the BSD/MIT licenses are more effective because they allow for proprietary use.
Apache was licensed under the BSD license in part due to philosophical preferences of its creators, but with the effect of promoting HTTP as a standard transport for online documents. Nobody had to ask for permission to use Apache, or to incorporate it into their own products (as IBM did).
Arguably the orginal use of the BSD license, to spread use of Berkeley Unix, achieved similar aims.
From the ideological standpoint:
* If your goal is to promote Free Software, use the GPL (or a variant with stronger ties to distribution for Web or online services).
* If your goal is to promote use of Free Software Libraries, in an environment where there are numerous non-free alternatives, the LGPL has benefits.
* If your goal is to promote use of an open standard, the BSD/MIT licenses are more effective because they allow for proprietary use.