MIT has a killer failing: it was developed prior to the onset of software patents, and so has no patent release. This dooms it to being appropriate for only trivial projects. It doesn't matter if you think there's nothing patentable in your code: others don't know that. If you want people to use your code in this day and age, a patent release is critically important.
Use Apache. Why be concerned about license length? Include the license once and then refer to it in your source copies. No big deal.
But if you're building something like node.js, nginx, or Lucene, choosing MIT/BSD is likely a terrible idea. Apache gives huge protections for unforeseen scenarios: automatic property rights assignment for contributions, poison-pill–like protections against patent suits, &c.
I highly recommend this book on Proprietary Information and Open Source: http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Open-Source-Prot...
Aside — Sean, I took your CS101 class in '07. Crazy running into you randomly here ;)
The job would have be trivial enough to make it clear to everyone concerned that there was nothing patentable in it, I suppose.
As to GPL compatibility, I've seen this play out with the AFL too (I use the AFL a lot). My take on it is: GPL incompatibility with well-designed, modern licenses like the AFL and Apache is not their fault. It's the fault of the FSF for producing licenses with outstanding flaws. As someone firmly in the BSD camp, I'm not too concerned about the FSF's foibles.
Please, tell that to Linux users. Now, compare the vibrant ecosystem around Linux with the vibrant ecosystem around FreeBSD and try to think why it happens and what's the difference between them.
+100. I love this attitude.
Where I work contracts and grants prefers that we use BSD because they (as I understand it) think apache's patent grants are too broad.
Contracts and grants prefers we use Education Community License over apache http://www.educause.edu/wiki/Educational+Community+License
This site gives a good overview:
IMO, you may just as well use GPLv3, ALv2 source is almost as risky in commercial products.
"Mixing copyright law with patent law", whatever that means, has nothing to do with risk in commercial products. Apache is very well regarded as a BSD-style license in the commercial environment.