If you're attached to your copyright: 0-clause BSD is a thing that exists[0]. Toybox uses it.

If you want to throw your copyright out the window: The commonly accepted solution seems to be CC-0[1], which tries very hard to disclaim rights and limit liability in as many jurisdictions as possible, complete with a fallback license grant for failed public domain dedications. Because CC-0 makes some people uncomfortable despite the lengths it goes to reach its goals, some projects work with dual-licensing to cover the other side, such as Monocypher.

Neither of them address patents. If patents are something you want to/need to address, you could perhaps paste the patent clause from BSD-2-Clause-Patent onto 0-clause BSD.

See also the discussion on [2,3].

[0] https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html

[1] https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain-equivalent_licen...

[3] http://landley.net/toybox/license.html

I wondered why more FOSS projects aren't using CC0 instead of "permissive" licenses like MIT, considering a lot of folks who work in FOSS are against copyright/software patents system in general, and most of them don't really seem to care about attribution.

People who release code under MIT not only won't/can't take legal action but they probably won't even bother writing an email to the person who they believe violated the attribution part.

Because permissive licenses promote proprietary use cases and that's not what FOSS movement aims to achieve.

MIT doesn't promote proprietary use cases any more than CC0.

I do (somewhat but not really) get why people use GPL but that's another story. Here we are only talking about people who use MIT instead of CC0.