Google also recoils from WTFPL, which may make it a more palatable license for folks who don't agree with the AGPL's various quirks and features. Not that AGPL is bad, but WTFPL is quite bare-bones.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, or something like that.
I think a lot of people forget that not all software needs to be aerospace grade shit that with licenses corporate suits think are sensible. Certainly WTFPL is not an appropriate license for every software project, but that doesn't mean it's inappropriate for all software projects.
Generally, lawsuits arise under two conditions:
- You start making lots of money.
- You're doing something that causes someone else to lose lots of money.
The same is true of software licenses. You won't get sued for hobby projects with low impact. But if you start making money, others will want a piece. If you start impeding on someone else's revenue, they will want to protect it. If you're in either of these situations, software licenses matter.
I agree, and that's precisely the sort of software I've seen using the WTFPL license. I don't think it's right to characterize this as reckless. Licensing something like PostgreSQL as WTFPL would be reckless, but I don't think that's how the license is actually used by the community.
"Reckless" is too strong, but shortsighted or poor judgment might be more appropriate. If you're using a software license for anything, whether it's a hobby, a helpful library, or a potential business venture, that means you're distributing your work to the world.
What benefit do you gain by using a poorly understood license that is effectively the same as widely used permissive licenses?
To let other Joe Blows know that they should feel free to do what the fuck they want with your code.
https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-no...