You want your library used in the next big project? Don't use WTFPL.
This is false in the large corporate environments I've worked in. The WTFPL is sufficiently established and mainstream that legal knows what it is and has a position that it's fine. Use of anything GPL requires a lot more specific review to ensure we'll be compliant.
Very few companies are fine to write "fuck" in documents that reaches customers. Very few are fine to have no license attached to software.
A lot of companies distribute unmodified GPL software and have no issue with including the GPL licensing text (and source code) in ways that reaches customers.
Redistribute it under another license then? The WTFPL gives you permission to do that, after all.
> A lot of companies distribute unmodified GPL software and have no issue with including the GPL licensing text (and source code) in ways that reaches customers.
It's perfectly doable. But it's nonzero effort and it creates an ongoing obligation (as long as you're going to keep distributing the software, or something like 3 years after if you do the more customer-friendly thing of only distributing the source on request). I'm not surprised that a company would do it, but I'm amazed that a company would consider it less burdensome than the WTFPL.
As for the GPL ongoing obligation, I am not sure how many picks the source-on-request method or the subgroup of those that also get a request. Its a fix-it-later issue compared to the more immediate issue of "fuck" appearing in the product.
Just to be a bit clearer on my own opinion, a good company should have no issue of using both licenses. Writing code is costly and time consuming, and a good company should focus on core aspects rather than reinventing programming infrastructure. If the license is compatible with the business model then use it. If its not, ask the author for a exception. If all fails, then and only then waste developers time. In video games I often see software licenses in game credits, and many game studios will use any and all licenses that isn't in direct conflict with the business model, and I assume its because that market is too competitive to not do so. Including LGPLv3 source code on the disk (or offering) isn't a big deal compared to a game shipping a month or two later.
Sure, it's a slightly unusual thing to do. But I think it's less unusual than what you have to do for GPL compliance.
> As for the GPL ongoing obligation, I am not sure how many picks the source-on-request method or the subgroup of those that also get a request. Its a fix-it-later issue compared to the more immediate issue of "fuck" appearing in the product.
Legal should not be treating it as a fix-it-later issue if they're caring about licensing at all. Distributing GPL code not in compliance with the license is exactly as bad as distributing code you have no license to at all (and opens you up to exactly the same liability, given that the damages for copyright infringement are statutory).
Don't get me wrong, I support the GPL, but license compliance is important and nontrivial. Note that the LGPL is a very different license from the GPL, and much easier to comply with.
There's also SQLite, which is probably one of the most widely use libraries in existence. It's in the public domain.
With an additional license for countries, like Germany, where the public domain doesn’t exist (as copyright isn’t really a thing, but only "creator rights" and "usage rights")
If you are operating internationally (like nearly the entire tech industry), complying in as many jurisdictions as possible is very valuable
Also, in a corporate environment, there's typically some additional overhead cost and bureaucracy and approvals that a new license text brings in, even when the engineers and lawyers manage to agree everything is OK.
Which is a problem.