> is it up to me to fight or work around that system
If you want to make a gift, it's up to you to do it the right way / to allow people to get it, don't you think? You already put some effort to build and wrap it, you could as well stick some small label on it (put some working license), that's quite easy to do in comparison.
The rest of your comment hints at why you should pick a recognized license in any case.
Is it important to me that people can accept it, or is it just important to me that I'm not making it difficult for someone to be able to accept it?
If people have trouble accepting gifts because of local regulations, perhaps it is instead up to them to try get those regulations revised?
[FWIW: I'd not use these licence options anyway. I'm more AGPLv3 for code and CC BY-NC v4 for other content, not that I have any published ATM unless you count long forgotten stuff from a decade or two ago, other terms available subject to negotiation]
> or is it just important to me that I'm not making it difficult for someone to be able to accept it?
I don't know. By writing "Dedicated to the public domain" instead of "Licensed under MIT [or CC0]", you are doing comparable effort but you are definitely making it difficult for some people with no clear benefits.
Getting such regulations revised is very hard work and would probably not happen in our lifetime, and I'm not sure being able to dedicate something to the public domain when you can license your work liberally anyway is that desirable.
(but yes, me too, I'm more AGPLv3 for code anyway - and none of us is right or wrong in this philosophical discussion)
If you want to make a gift, it's up to you to do it the right way / to allow people to get it, don't you think? You already put some effort to build and wrap it, you could as well stick some small label on it (put some working license), that's quite easy to do in comparison.
The rest of your comment hints at why you should pick a recognized license in any case.