Having a nonstandard licence on your code basically ensures that no corporation will use your project. Internal clearing processes become a lot more expensive if it's not one of the approved licences.
I want my licenses to cater to hobbyists/hackers/tinkerers and maybe small businesses first, if corporations don't like it they can pay me to relicense things for them.
The hope here is for it to become a standard license in short order, if people find it useful. That includes SPDX submission, OSI approval, and then inclusion in Github's licensing apparatus.
Specifically, I'd like to think that corporations would find it significantly more comfortable to use software under LIL than under MIT: They won't have to worry as much about unknown patents held by the authors, and they won't have to worry about future legal disputes with third-party contributors. Both of those are significant issues today — this very week, even.
That said, if you want something permissive, but lawyered-up and bulletproof, use Apache. This isn't intended to compete with Apache. It's intended to compete with what folks actually use and love, which is MIT.
So let me theorize why that is. Game studios is always short on time, short on developers, and short on money. If doing something nonstandard will save you days/weeks/months of developer time, that is features and bug fixes that otherwise might never be done. There is no room to be religious about which license the #38 library that you use as long it don't conflict with the business model of developing and selling games. Only industries where competition is slower and there is a disconnect between development and revenue can people care strongly about having only licenses they like.
However, it would probably behoove them to actually get an actual lawyer to take a look at the license, if only to have some kind of up-front certification for adopters that the thing won't get them sued or taken advantage of. There are several changes from the original MIT language that indicate they might not know what they're doing any more than your average Hackernews. For instance, putting warranty disclaimers in all caps is common practice and it's done for a reason [0], but they evidently didn't bother to search "warranty all caps" on DuckDuckGo and decide "you know what, it's fine, we can live with an all-caps clause." To my untrained eye, it looks fine, but who knows what might cause it to get torn up in court. Which of course proves your point: no corporation will use a LIL licensed project at least until it's been vetted or tested or reviewed somehow.
Lil license:
Permission is hereby granted by the authors of this software, to any person, to use the software for any purpose, free of charge, including the rights to run, read, copy, change, distribute and sell it, and including usage rights to any patents the authors may hold on it, subject to the following conditions:
This license, or a link to its text, must be included with all copies of the software and any derivative works.
Any modification to the software submitted to the authors may be incorporated into the software under the terms of this license.
The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, including but not limited to the warranties of title, fitness, merchantability and non-infringement. The authors have no obligation to provide support or updates for the software, and may not be held liable for any damages, claims or other liability arising from its use.
Expat license:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
[0]: http://www.partingthoughts.net/why-are-warranty-disclaimers-...
But I certainly did think about it before using lowercase. The reasoning is this: The Uniform Commercial Code requires language opting out of implied warranties to be "conspicuous". In short, you can't bury the warranty disclaimer in the fine print. In a dozen-page long plain text license, putting the disclaimer in all caps might be a way to try and make it conspicuous. I enjoy Kyle Mitchell's take on this:
"Lawyers have long suffered under the delusion that writing anything in ALL-CAPS meets the conspicuous requirement. That isn’t true. Courts have criticized the Bar for pretending as much, and most everyone agrees all-caps does more to discourage reading than compel it."
In the Lil License, the warranty disclaimer is in normal type because the license is short, and it's meant to be read. It's a conspicuous part of the license. You noticed it right away ;)
You might want to mention that it's been vetted and that you did in fact put some serious research into it. From the tone of the FAQ, it sounds like you and your buddies drafted this over beers on a Thursday night or something.