I've just started a project that uses the MIT license (almost identical to the BSD license). I used to wonder why anyone would use such a license and felt there were many good reasons NOT to use such a license. In this case, it was obvious to me that a wide open license like the MIT license was a good one for this project, in my opinion. Remember, I'm NOT a lawyer, and everything that my company, I, or Savonix company employees publish is NOT legal advice!
Back to the MIT license - let me explain why I decided to use it for the NODOWS project. The NODOWS project is a meta-distribution / tool chain that is used to build systems. If I were to license it under another open source license that included redistribution requirements under the same license (like the GPL), it would be difficult to enforce, because the value proposition lies not it the tool chain itself, but in what it is used to build. For example, if a licensee modified the tool chain, they would likely do so with a goal in mind for a specific build. Regardless of the tool chain license, the resulting build is a separate matter, and can be distributed however the licensee sees fit. They don't have to publish the tool chain, and there would be no point for them to do so other than to give back to the community.
This is an important point, for the GPL to be enforced, GPL-licensed software has to be distributed. Therein lies the SaaS-loophole, one which is getting patched by the Affero GPL. The GPL "builder-loophole" is much wider and unpatchable, so in my opinion there are two choices, go with an "open" commercial license, which restricts the use of the software, or hand control over to the open source community. In my experience, getting developers to use an open source, restricted use software package is an uphill battle, and the open source community is a surprisingly well run operation, so I've decided to use the MIT license for NODOWS.
For more information about NODOWS, visit the NODOWS blog.