For anything that falls under creative work you can go for a cc-licence. This page will help you to choose the right for you. For more info on licences in general you can visit tldrlegal.
Below is an overview of the most common licences (not only cc). Licences are per se not domain specific, i.e. they are not restricted to just code, data or articles but one license may be better suited for e.g. data than another.
This licence is often used (and was also developed) for scientific work. It is certainly a good choice when it comes to articles as one must give credit to the author of the work.
The less restrictive, Creative Commons Attribution license in International version 4, that gives maximum freedom to do what they want with your work.
This is probably the most common when it comes to data.
Releases software into the public domain, or otherwise grants permission to use it for any purpose. Disclaims patent licenses.
Most frequently used licence when it comes to code based work. Should work for scientific content as the copyright must be included.
The MIT License is a permissive license that is short and to the point. It lets people do anything they want with your code as long as they provide attribution back to you and don’t hold you liable.
Rails use the MIT License.
Frequently used for code.
The Apache License is a permissive license similar to the MIT License, but also provides an express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.
NuGet use the Apache License.
Mostly for code based work.
The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but further restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations.
WordPress use the GPL.
Same as for the MIT License.
A permissive license lets people do anything with your code with proper attribution and without warranty. The ISC license is functionally equivalent to the BSD 2-Clause and MIT licenses, removing some language that is no longer necessary.
Mainly used for code, but is a good candidate for scientific work and data as the original work and the copyright must be provided.
Primarily used for software libraries, LGPL requires that derived works be licensed under the same license, but works that only link to it do not fall under this restriction. There are two commonly used versions of the LGPL.
Similar to GNU LGPL-2.1
The Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0) is maintained by the Mozilla foundation. This license attempts to be a compromise between the permissive BSD license and the reciprocal GPL license.
Can be used for anything really
Because copyright is automatic in most countries, the Unlicense is a template to waive copyright interest in software you've written and dedicate it to the public domain. Use the Unlicense to opt out of copyright entirely. It also includes the no-warranty statement from the MIT/X11 license.
You’re under no obligation to choose a license and it’s your right not to include one with your code or project. But please note that opting out of open source licenses doesn’t mean you’re opting out of copyright law.
Part of this is taken from choose a licence.
This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)