Michael Tremer wrote:

But if I would generally say, that I would never try to enforce my license, what
is the point of picking on in the first place?

For the reason listed in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NoLicense

If source code does not carry a license to give users the four essential freedoms,
then unless it has been explicitly and validly placed in the public domain, it is
not free software.

Some developers think that code with no license is automatically in the public
domain[1]. That is not true under today's copyright law; rather, all copyrightable
works are copyrighted by default. This includes programs. Absent a license to grant users freedom, they don't have any. In some countries, users that download
code with no license may infringe copyright merely by compiling it or running it.

In order for a program to be free, its copyright holders must explicitly grant
users the four essential freedoms[2]. The document with which they do so is called a
free software license. This is what free software licenses are for.

Some countries allow authors to put code in the public domain, but that requires
explicit action. If you wish to do that, the method we recommend is to use CC0[3],
which also works in other countries by putting on a license that is more or less
equivalent to public domain. However, in most cases it is better to copyleft your
code[4] to assure that freedom reaches all users of the code.

Code written by employees of the US government is a special exception, since US
copyright law explicitly puts that in the public domain; but this does not apply
to works that the US pays a company to write. It also does not apply to other countries, many of which do allow the state to have a copyright on government writings.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0
[4] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

I would say you'd be better off picking CC0 or a non-copylefted free software license
that looks out for the user's interests with patent law (such as Apache License version 2.0 -- see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 for more
details). That is more honest and consistent with an intention to not enforce.

If licenses are not enforced, they are worthless.

They aren't known to be unenforced by most parties until some party tries to do something infringing and sees that there is no enforcement. Other non-infringing uses
could have been dealt with more honestly by the copyright holder by picking licensing
that accurately reflects the stance to not enforce any license's terms.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)