Before, I thought it was a paradox, because before I understood MPL2.0, I didn't know of a good in-between of GPL and permissive licenses. Permissive licenses allow freedom, but the code is a one way street to a viral license or there's a fear of misuse by owners of proprietary code.
I wanted something that performs the same function of MPL or Apache License, but simpler and easier to keep licenses clearly defined. Something that could be used with a viral license if that viral license allowed it, but the code itself couldn't be absorbed. LGPL would be fine, except it's a convenient one way into GPL.
A directory weak copyleft license, would take over permissive code, but it would protect additional code added to it, as from being absorbed into a viral license. That would also protect and document the code as a snapshot that is free from a viral license. If multiple code in it was lost, and a version was GPL, it would be nearly difficult to get that back, as it would have to be found and proven. Of course a library, which Github kind of is, also protects that.
With a directory weak copyleft license, people would be free to use that code alongside their proprietary code, another weak copyleft license or another license that permits it, as long as it's outside that directory, without any obligation to give that up. If code inside that directory is changed, then, there's obligation to give those changes up, but that's a benefit to everyone and a good cost of using that code. It also takes away the complexity of keeping binary code proprietary, while having to share source code. This way, all their code they created can remain proprietary, except for the obligation to give up changes to code within a used directory itself.
A directory level weak copyleft license without a patent clause:
For another proposed license which has a patent license included. The above plus clause 5:
Point 5 should not be a way that could possibly force proprietary or other opensource code to be given up to this license, though they only give up rights to the opensource code of this license, and it's not about their own code. Mozilla lawyers made it, so it's probably ok, and they came up with it as best as they could think of. It's also a toss up, because they would legally have to give up rights to the code, then they're allowed to get access to it the next day, because the license permits it.
It doesn't need to absorb Apache licensed code, as it can be used side by side, as MPL and Apache are meant to be used side by side, despite their separate specific terms.
I wanted something that performs the same function of MPL or Apache License, but simpler and easier to keep licenses clearly defined. Something that could be used with a viral license if that viral license allowed it, but the code itself couldn't be absorbed. LGPL would be fine, except it's a convenient one way into GPL.
A directory weak copyleft license, would take over permissive code, but it would protect additional code added to it, as from being absorbed into a viral license. That would also protect and document the code as a snapshot that is free from a viral license. If multiple code in it was lost, and a version was GPL, it would be nearly difficult to get that back, as it would have to be found and proven. Of course a library, which Github kind of is, also protects that.
With a directory weak copyleft license, people would be free to use that code alongside their proprietary code, another weak copyleft license or another license that permits it, as long as it's outside that directory, without any obligation to give that up. If code inside that directory is changed, then, there's obligation to give those changes up, but that's a benefit to everyone and a good cost of using that code. It also takes away the complexity of keeping binary code proprietary, while having to share source code. This way, all their code they created can remain proprietary, except for the obligation to give up changes to code within a used directory itself.
A directory level weak copyleft license without a patent clause:
The altlicense directory would use naming conventions at contributors' discretion.Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4. Contributions or modifications under this top-level directory remain under this license, with the exception of the "altlicense" subdirectory. The "altlicense" subdirectory is intended to make this software compatible with other works that are dedicated to those licenses, while keeping license terms of code clearly separate. This software can be used with any other licensed software that permits it, without this license otherwise affecting software outside of this top-level directory.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
For another proposed license which has a patent license included. The above plus clause 5:
This part is taken from the MPL 2.0, as (while it appears to be heavily influenced by Apache's licenses) it's more reasonable than Apache's patent license. The reason for having a choice of an identical license with an additional patent clause, is that there's two camps of ideas, for worries about patent trolls. One says MIT and BSD licenses themself protect them from patent trolls. For those who feel like more is needed, then use the version with the additional patent clause.5. If You initiate litigation against any entity by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions, counter-claims, and cross-claims) alleging that a Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then the rights granted to You by any and all Contributors for the Covered Software under Section 2.1 of this License shall terminate.
Point 5 should not be a way that could possibly force proprietary or other opensource code to be given up to this license, though they only give up rights to the opensource code of this license, and it's not about their own code. Mozilla lawyers made it, so it's probably ok, and they came up with it as best as they could think of. It's also a toss up, because they would legally have to give up rights to the code, then they're allowed to get access to it the next day, because the license permits it.
It doesn't need to absorb Apache licensed code, as it can be used side by side, as MPL and Apache are meant to be used side by side, despite their separate specific terms.