[msla]

Quoting from the critique of the Unlicense:

> Guess what? There's a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge.

This is true, but guess what? Everything you do legally depends on jurisdiction and judge. That's how the law works. I get that some licenses are more broken than others, but using that specific reason for saying you can't release software into the public domain is particularly empty-headed.

This doesn't even get into the fact that clickwrap contracts of adhesion are on even murkier legal grounds than something which tries to place a piece of software into the public domain, as an over-reaching contract of adhesion actually attempts to do something, and contracts of adhesion are subject to special scrutiny under the law.

[orra]

Yes, laws vary by jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we have a lot of licences which work as worldwide as possible.

As much as I wish otherwise, it does not appear to be possible to dedicate works to the public domain in Germany, and quite possibly other jurisdictions. As such, it's best to offer an MIT-style licence for residents of such jurisdictions. This doesn't stop you making a public domain declaration in jurisdictions where you can.