Licensors perspective (I know, many licensees will disagree with the first part)
1. If you want to dual license, use either AGPL or GPL (possibly even EUPL) Choice depends on what's your intent is. Choose carefully (EUPL has licensor warrant requirement). AGPL can be perfect for small companies who want to use licensing to generate revenue. Remember to be clear that dual licensing is an option. You can always switch to more permissible license later when you own all the code.
2. Use Apache-2.0, or MIT if you want the code just to be open source.
I agree with your intent. I've always advocated for the following:
1)GPL or LGPL for things you want to stay free.
2)BSD or MIT for everything else. This is important for things like firmware, where offering source code can be rather silly. Also, some people don't have an issue with companies incorporating their code into closed products and these offer an easy way to allow that.
I always felt the OSI did a huge disservice by encouraging companies to create their own licenses. There really aren't that many things people want from a source code license, so a few that broadly cover those cases is important. All the others just create license-compatibility issues that limit the usefulness of the code.
1. If you want to dual license, use either AGPL or GPL (possibly even EUPL) Choice depends on what's your intent is. Choose carefully (EUPL has licensor warrant requirement). AGPL can be perfect for small companies who want to use licensing to generate revenue. Remember to be clear that dual licensing is an option. You can always switch to more permissible license later when you own all the code.
2. Use Apache-2.0, or MIT if you want the code just to be open source.
I would like to hear disagreeing legal arguments.