Not going to enforce the license? Pick a more lax, permissive free software license.

["J.B. Nicholson" <jbn@forestfield.org>]

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.