The purpose of a file-based non-viral, copyleft work copy license, would be to preserve freedom of code throughout forks and variations, while further preserving freedom of use outside of code outside of this directory.
Freedom for use of code would be preserved, because when a derivative or fork is made from permissively licensed code, that often gets closed off to the opensource license, or becomes a part of a more restrictive open source license. For instance, there's a Window Manager which has been under a permissive license, then, someone can make a simple addition, and slap a GPL or proprietary license on top of that. When or if the original copy or any version of permissively licensed code gets lost, the more restrictive GPL form based on that stays around, though, that form lacks freedoms for use.
Those who edit within the directory, must give up their contributions, while if they choose to keep their work, that must go outside of the code in Work Form. Freedom for use of code would be indefinitely preserved through all forms, so long as the code it's used with is kept out of the Work or Source directory, rather than full freedom to do what you want with that code, including of being able to keep derivatives out of use for opensource or proprietary use. While this may seem like a takeaway of freedoms, it allows more freedoms than GPL, which is considered by their proponents to have the most freedoms, because it is less invasive. This will also remove ironies on how permissive licenses allow their derivatives to get eaten up by proprietary entities or GPL licenses. While code outside of a directory-wide file based license wouldn't be applicable to this license, code made by contributors within that license are preserved through all forms. It will also keep code from being put behind a wall, being of GPL or proprietary, where for instance, someone would have to sort out additions made in GPL, which may become too cumbersome, when they want to access the more permissive code.
The debate of permissive vs GPL licenses leads to irony. One debate is allowing freedoms, while those freedoms involve losing those freedoms. With a directory wide Work Form license, or arguably other weak copyleft file-based licenses perform keeping those freedoms to varying extents. Licenses which require code outside of the licensed code to be marked, perhaps perform preservation of the code to an even lesser extent. A file-based which is directory wide, protects all of that it encompasses, and it doesn't have to be viral outside of that. The biggest limit on a viral license, is it forcing what it depends on, when otherwise those licenses allow freedoms for anything that allows it to use them. The other limit, is how else far a viral license reaches, that it conflicts with use of other programs not intended to be opened up to GPL. Use of API's is good, and linking exceptions is not universally clear. The Linux kernel is ok, because its a solid piece of well known software, where its limits are defined at a specific API, and anything outside of that, is outside of that license's boundaries.
Apache 2.0 and MPL 2.0 as a basis
First, a look at the most commonly used permissive licenses: 2-Clause BSD License (also known as Simplified BSD License and FreeBSD License), 3-Clause BSD License (aka Modified BSD Licence), and ISCL.
ISCL is the shortest of these licenses: the disclaimer is shorter, and there doesn't seem to be specific text that requires this disclaimer to appear in all copies. If that's part of the permission notice, this is vague.
The Simplified BSD License and 3-Clause BSD License both have texts that clearly require the same disclaimer to appear in all copies. The 3-Clause BSD License has an additional clause that names of authors or contributors can't be used to endorse or promote products without written consent. This is important for people and organizations with names to protect. The Simplified BSD License can have disclaimers that their names aren't affiliated with such derivatives, as that would be required to be inserted into the documentation, as per the other clause requires. The 3-Clause BSD License was called the Modified BSD License or New BSD License which these alternative names were in comparison to the original BSD License, which required all text of contributors to be put in every derivative.
On to Apache Licenses. Previous licenses were closer to the 3-Clause BSD License, with additional text for clarifications and additional text in the flavor of the Apache brand. These older licenses fell out of popular use. The Apache 2.0 License covers the clauses of the 3-Clause BSD License, and goes on further to include a patent clause, definitions, marking separation of code that falls outside the license, distinctions of use of Source Copy and Work Copy and so on. For all what's included in Apache 2.0 License, it's pretty simple, however, nowhere as simple as the widespread BSD and ISC licenses previously mentioned.
Mozilla 2.0 License, by comparison, is a complicated license regarding its text. For use, it's basic, as it preserves freedoms of use and the software, so let Mozilla worry about the legal aspects. Another way in which it's complicated, is in how it allows use with GPL, which otherwise GPL is restrictive on what can be used with it.
Apache 2.0 will be used as a starting point for one license, with pieces of MPL 2.0, while using 3-Clause BSD license as a reference point, for a license.
Definitions of types of copies
Apache 2.0 and MPL2.0 define Work Copy, Source Copy, Executable Copy. Work Copy is relevant for defining file-based copyleft and code which is marked under a license in the case of Apache 2.0.
Simple license criteria
The goal would be to make this license, close to as simple as possible, while keeping a directory wide Work Copy (also being file-based), and having a good patent clause.
For this license, GPL compatibility isn't the goal. If it is to be incompatible with a viral license, and their stewarding foundation makes another license to be compatible, perhaps it will make that license be better in some aspects. It will use the best of the patent clauses from either Apache 2.0 and MPL2.0. Being directory wide may or may not make it incompatible, and it won't include complicated text to make it compatible with any viral license. It's meant to be compatible with everything opensource which isn't viral, and meant to allow use with proprietary software while preserving its terms and freedoms for opensource. For reference, Apache 2.0 is compatible for use with GPL3, for the patent clause is compatible one way.
Some licenses allow authors or users of that code to bump up the license version within a specific steward's future licenses. This simplified directory-wide will avoid that.
Attempt at licenses compatible for everything
While it would be good to make a license for libraries to be used as a common denominator compatible for use with everything, including GPL and any other supposed licenses, that will call on another license. There may be proposals for a GPL alternative which the viralness doesn't extend to dependencies. An LGPL alternative to be used with GPL may not be possible, without that license also allowing that code to be relicensed. That will need LGPL or a permissive licenses. A clone of the Apache 2.0 License could be made to only allow exceptions only for use with GPL2, as it will keep its terms otherwise, because that's already compatible with GPL3. Alternatively, it could be a permissive license, which requires code outside of the license to be marked, like Apache 2.0, but be without a patent clause, so it could be compatible with all current versions of GPL. BSD Clear License may not be compatible with GPL, and it doesn't allow use with patents.
Wording for ideal patent clause
The wording in Apache License 2.0 says counter-claims and cross-claims are included in patent infringement litigation, for their license to be revoked. Mozilla License 2.0 is a little more permissive, as counter-claims, cross-claims and declatory judgement actions aren't included in patent infringement litigation claims. In a supposed new license, declatory judgement actions should be exceptions, as is in Mozilla 2.0 License. I'm unsure of the ramifications of counter-claims and cross-claims should be included or excluded, as it normally would be better to allow them, unless a company games the system to use that as a trap for patent trolling. Still, either offers more protection, than licenses without a patent clause. Apache's license offers the most protection, while Mozilla's offers a little more reasonable safety from losing permission to use code.
This is a under construction patent clause proposal derived from Mozilla's and Apache's patent clauses:
Wording for directory file-based license
Not worked out yet, but will be like Apache's, also based on Mozilla's description of its file-based extent, and other existing licenses with an added detail on top of it being file-based, that it is directory-wide.
Freedom for use of code would be preserved, because when a derivative or fork is made from permissively licensed code, that often gets closed off to the opensource license, or becomes a part of a more restrictive open source license. For instance, there's a Window Manager which has been under a permissive license, then, someone can make a simple addition, and slap a GPL or proprietary license on top of that. When or if the original copy or any version of permissively licensed code gets lost, the more restrictive GPL form based on that stays around, though, that form lacks freedoms for use.
Those who edit within the directory, must give up their contributions, while if they choose to keep their work, that must go outside of the code in Work Form. Freedom for use of code would be indefinitely preserved through all forms, so long as the code it's used with is kept out of the Work or Source directory, rather than full freedom to do what you want with that code, including of being able to keep derivatives out of use for opensource or proprietary use. While this may seem like a takeaway of freedoms, it allows more freedoms than GPL, which is considered by their proponents to have the most freedoms, because it is less invasive. This will also remove ironies on how permissive licenses allow their derivatives to get eaten up by proprietary entities or GPL licenses. While code outside of a directory-wide file based license wouldn't be applicable to this license, code made by contributors within that license are preserved through all forms. It will also keep code from being put behind a wall, being of GPL or proprietary, where for instance, someone would have to sort out additions made in GPL, which may become too cumbersome, when they want to access the more permissive code.
The debate of permissive vs GPL licenses leads to irony. One debate is allowing freedoms, while those freedoms involve losing those freedoms. With a directory wide Work Form license, or arguably other weak copyleft file-based licenses perform keeping those freedoms to varying extents. Licenses which require code outside of the licensed code to be marked, perhaps perform preservation of the code to an even lesser extent. A file-based which is directory wide, protects all of that it encompasses, and it doesn't have to be viral outside of that. The biggest limit on a viral license, is it forcing what it depends on, when otherwise those licenses allow freedoms for anything that allows it to use them. The other limit, is how else far a viral license reaches, that it conflicts with use of other programs not intended to be opened up to GPL. Use of API's is good, and linking exceptions is not universally clear. The Linux kernel is ok, because its a solid piece of well known software, where its limits are defined at a specific API, and anything outside of that, is outside of that license's boundaries.
Apache 2.0 and MPL 2.0 as a basis
First, a look at the most commonly used permissive licenses: 2-Clause BSD License (also known as Simplified BSD License and FreeBSD License), 3-Clause BSD License (aka Modified BSD Licence), and ISCL.
ISCL is the shortest of these licenses: the disclaimer is shorter, and there doesn't seem to be specific text that requires this disclaimer to appear in all copies. If that's part of the permission notice, this is vague.
The Simplified BSD License and 3-Clause BSD License both have texts that clearly require the same disclaimer to appear in all copies. The 3-Clause BSD License has an additional clause that names of authors or contributors can't be used to endorse or promote products without written consent. This is important for people and organizations with names to protect. The Simplified BSD License can have disclaimers that their names aren't affiliated with such derivatives, as that would be required to be inserted into the documentation, as per the other clause requires. The 3-Clause BSD License was called the Modified BSD License or New BSD License which these alternative names were in comparison to the original BSD License, which required all text of contributors to be put in every derivative.
On to Apache Licenses. Previous licenses were closer to the 3-Clause BSD License, with additional text for clarifications and additional text in the flavor of the Apache brand. These older licenses fell out of popular use. The Apache 2.0 License covers the clauses of the 3-Clause BSD License, and goes on further to include a patent clause, definitions, marking separation of code that falls outside the license, distinctions of use of Source Copy and Work Copy and so on. For all what's included in Apache 2.0 License, it's pretty simple, however, nowhere as simple as the widespread BSD and ISC licenses previously mentioned.
Mozilla 2.0 License, by comparison, is a complicated license regarding its text. For use, it's basic, as it preserves freedoms of use and the software, so let Mozilla worry about the legal aspects. Another way in which it's complicated, is in how it allows use with GPL, which otherwise GPL is restrictive on what can be used with it.
Apache 2.0 will be used as a starting point for one license, with pieces of MPL 2.0, while using 3-Clause BSD license as a reference point, for a license.
Definitions of types of copies
Apache 2.0 and MPL2.0 define Work Copy, Source Copy, Executable Copy. Work Copy is relevant for defining file-based copyleft and code which is marked under a license in the case of Apache 2.0.
Simple license criteria
The goal would be to make this license, close to as simple as possible, while keeping a directory wide Work Copy (also being file-based), and having a good patent clause.
For this license, GPL compatibility isn't the goal. If it is to be incompatible with a viral license, and their stewarding foundation makes another license to be compatible, perhaps it will make that license be better in some aspects. It will use the best of the patent clauses from either Apache 2.0 and MPL2.0. Being directory wide may or may not make it incompatible, and it won't include complicated text to make it compatible with any viral license. It's meant to be compatible with everything opensource which isn't viral, and meant to allow use with proprietary software while preserving its terms and freedoms for opensource. For reference, Apache 2.0 is compatible for use with GPL3, for the patent clause is compatible one way.
Some licenses allow authors or users of that code to bump up the license version within a specific steward's future licenses. This simplified directory-wide will avoid that.
Attempt at licenses compatible for everything
While it would be good to make a license for libraries to be used as a common denominator compatible for use with everything, including GPL and any other supposed licenses, that will call on another license. There may be proposals for a GPL alternative which the viralness doesn't extend to dependencies. An LGPL alternative to be used with GPL may not be possible, without that license also allowing that code to be relicensed. That will need LGPL or a permissive licenses. A clone of the Apache 2.0 License could be made to only allow exceptions only for use with GPL2, as it will keep its terms otherwise, because that's already compatible with GPL3. Alternatively, it could be a permissive license, which requires code outside of the license to be marked, like Apache 2.0, but be without a patent clause, so it could be compatible with all current versions of GPL. BSD Clear License may not be compatible with GPL, and it doesn't allow use with patents.
Wording for ideal patent clause
The wording in Apache License 2.0 says counter-claims and cross-claims are included in patent infringement litigation, for their license to be revoked. Mozilla License 2.0 is a little more permissive, as counter-claims, cross-claims and declatory judgement actions aren't included in patent infringement litigation claims. In a supposed new license, declatory judgement actions should be exceptions, as is in Mozilla 2.0 License. I'm unsure of the ramifications of counter-claims and cross-claims should be included or excluded, as it normally would be better to allow them, unless a company games the system to use that as a trap for patent trolling. Still, either offers more protection, than licenses without a patent clause. Apache's license offers the most protection, while Mozilla's offers a little more reasonable safety from losing permission to use code.
This is a under construction patent clause proposal derived from Mozilla's and Apache's patent clauses:
The question is whether to have
excludes or includes counter-claims and cross-claims. One choice is more reasonable, while the other is safer for use. At least, what an honest organization only risks losing usage of the opensource code, with including both as in the Apache 2.0 License.Wording for directory file-based license
Not worked out yet, but will be like Apache's, also based on Mozilla's description of its file-based extent, and other existing licenses with an added detail on top of it being file-based, that it is directory-wide.