Sharing the links to both since I had to look them up to educate myself:
I’m most familiar with Creative Commons licensing since I use CC music and sound in my games, but I think those are more appropriate for art and media as opposed to software.
Depends on your intention to hold the project, because Artistic License says any changed copy must be renamed, and MIT says anyone can just pick up a project, put themselves in charge and continue.
Graham Nelson really likes the Artistic 2.0 License, but he’s one of the only people I’ve seen use it, outside of the Perl community. It is pretty uncommon now. On the other hand the MIT license is basically standard now. Everyone understands what it allows. If you want a permissive license, it’s what I’d recommend.
npm init today, the default license is ISC, which is MIT simplified. It’s a good default, I think.