Okay, so I presume that most (if not all) of us think that licences are convoluted. And that a fair few open-source tech enthusiasts take them far too seriously.
An example is GPLv3, which to me is for the most part incomprehensible, thus I can’t tell if people would bat any eyelids if I auto-grabbed content from someone else’s GPLv3 list (e.g. EasyList, uAssets, Frellwit, etc.) and used them in my BSD lists or not. I also can’t really figure out what the criteria for GPL-content modification even are. Mozilla Public License v2.0 isn’t exactly layman-readable either.
Although it seems to be rare for list maintainers to actually take offence to things like these, I know that it has happened with Energized Pro in particular, whose pissing-off of Steven Black was exacerbated by the former being yet another aggregate list as well as taking weeks off from development at a time.
I also haven’t really found any comparison charts/tables that compare different licences (although I haven’t really actively looked for one). It appears to me that CC0, WTFPL, and The Unlicense are the most free ones, followed by CC-BY, BSD, and DBAD, but none of them seem to me at a glance to be widely used by filterlist maintainers. Then there’s the stupidly strict ones like GPL, Mozilla, and CC BY-NC-ND, which are sometimes even spiteful enough to prohibit their use in more loosely licenced projects.
Long story short: Licences are confusing and convoluted, especially their relations to one another. It’s even making me tempted to create my own licence just for the [fun/hell] of it, so that I can feel confident in my intentions for my own projects.