$12256 / $11500
gvx is thinking about making licensing a problems of those who care about it. Something like "use this under any OSI-approved license or ask me for permission"
http://gvxdev.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/the-implicit-license/
In the comments we started talking about something like that for art licenses. Do you think that would be useful to have a "You may use this art under CC-BY/CC-BY-SA/GPL2+/LGPL2+ licenses" license? Somehow that's what OGA already does, but having such a license independantly might allow for making it more popular and making licensins a bit less of an annoyance (like Creative Commons [Creative Commons is not a license] did)
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
The licence proposed in that blog seems contradictory - many Open Source licences allow proprietary uses, but he says you can only pick an Open Source licence for non-proprietary use.
Furthermore, I would be wary of trying to invent new licences - what he's doing is not simply releasing under multiple licences, but adding extra conditions. I think it's much better to support standard licences rather than new ones, as there will typically be lots of uncertainties, vague areas - with standard licences like GPL and the CC licences, there are plenty of places to read up about how they work.
Regarding what you say here - isn't it already possible to say your work is licensed under multiple licences? If you're okay with CC-BY/CC-BY-SA/GPL 2+/LGPL 2+, then one can already select all of those?
If you mean a licence for art that allows it to be used however people want, then the obvious question is, why not CC0?