Ben Finney wrote
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's significantly *more* complicated than working with copyright and using an appropriate license.
The legal code is long and complex, because it can be. The whole point of the Creative Commons Licenses is that the license text is not included with the work, but instead just the license URL is included. Therefore it is in the interest of everybody to ensure it covers everything to the greatest extent possible.
Thus the CC0 licence takes only one line to apply to a work.#<authorname>makes this work avilable under CC0 (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
That is a heck of a lot simpler than including the Expat license, and people can easilly recognize it. With Expat or similar licenses, you should always be looking very closely to make sure no words were changed, or if they were changed, to determine the relevance of the changes.
Of course, for software sticking with Expat makes good sense, but Expat could be a bit of a pain to use as the license for an mp3 (for example).
IANAL, IANADD.