I released my Glad2 codebase back in January 2001, but it no longer compiles under modern compilers. I've been meaning for a while to fix it up - it's only a couple of minutes work. But while doing that, I figured it might be worth releasing it under a nicer licence. I'm thinking of using the MIT License, as this covers my two concerns (I want the copyright notices left in the source code, and don't want to get sued if there's a bug I've missed). Does anyone know of any issues with this licence that I should be aware of?

Well, one of the few complaints I've heard about the MIT license is that some people hesitate including MIT'ed software in their projects because you no longer have 100% ownership of your own distribution. Ie, you can't choose to omit the copyright notice.

Personally, though, I rather like the MIT license.

Most Ruby Gems are released using the MIT license. And I'm sure that most developers don't have a problem
including the header in their source files. IMO, if they have an issue with this, then it's just pride.

This kind of person is basically somebody who wants to use other people's work without giving any credit or acknowledgment for it.

Note that you don't have to include a prominent logo or acknowledgment on the "front page" of your product. The license merely states that you include the copyright.

The only thing weaker than this is basically public domain, so honestly I can't imagine why people would actually hesitate about the MIT license – what are you going to use instead? Demand that the authors release things as public domain? (I suppose you could always do all the work yourself.)