I'm amazed. Your legal department is happy to approve the GPL (a long license that imposes significant obligations if you distribute anything) but not the WTFPL? I can understand maybe the WTFPL simply isn't on the list yet (though I'm still amazed they wouldn't put strict requirements on use of anything GPL, because you can't "statically" comply with the GPL - you have to take particular actions every time you distribute a derived work, and legal would need to be confident this was happening), but that's a one-time cost, and there's enough WTFPL software out there for it to be worthwhile.
A lot of companies have policy to always include license documents in specific place where customer can see it.
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.
> Very few companies are fine to write "fuck" in documents that reaches customers. Very few are fine to have no license attached to software.
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.
Yes, writing a new license and just use that would be the better solution, but its in direct contrast to how companies handle software license. You don't generally take software and then replace the license with your own and pretend that the original license don't exist, even if the license do permits it.
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.
> You don't generally take software and then replace the license with your own and pretend that the original license don't exist, even if the license do permits it.
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.
