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.
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.
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.
