I'm afraid this is a little bit too naive. I am not a lawyer, and I agree that the GPL is quite unreadable, but the choice of licence does matter, and has real consequences. A BSD or MIT licence is very permissive, but one could argue that they is too permissive, with no attribution required for example. If what you want is "anyone can use it in any way and I don't care", then BSD-like is fine. GPL, imposes restrictions on derivative works, which could be argued as limiting freedom. My point is, not all "copyleft" licences are the same, and the choice depends on your needs and how you want people to use your software. Personally I like Apache. I find it much more readable than GPL and without the same derivative works restrictions.