Doesn't have the GPLv2 compatibility problem that Apache 2.0 has. Unlike most copyleft licenses it's file-based, and doesn't restrict linking in any way. Unlike most permissive licenses it provides protection from patent litigation and trademark violation, and provides some "weak" copyleft protections.
Really the only downside is that it's "new" by comparison with most other licenses (9 years old instead of 35+), and that most people don't know anything about it.
Unfortunately, MPLv2 has section 10 that means Mozilla Foundation has the ability to arbitrarily create new versions of the license, and it can be used with any MPLv2 licensed code. It's similar to the "GPLv2 or later" clause, but hard-coded. While I currently trust them, there is way to ensure that will always be the case.
> You may distribute the Covered Software under the terms of the version of the License under which You originally received the Covered Software, or under the terms of any subsequent version published by the license steward.
So yes, you can use MPLv2 for your software; whoever receives at can, _at their discretion_, use it under MPLv3 instead. You can, of course, still use MPLv2, if you're also okay with people choosing to use MPLv3 for your software instead.
I believe they have this clause because the original NPL wasn't GPL compatible, and they had to go through some effort to relicense the Mozilla source code, and figured they never want to go through that again.
Doesn't have the GPLv2 compatibility problem that Apache 2.0 has. Unlike most copyleft licenses it's file-based, and doesn't restrict linking in any way. Unlike most permissive licenses it provides protection from patent litigation and trademark violation, and provides some "weak" copyleft protections.
Really the only downside is that it's "new" by comparison with most other licenses (9 years old instead of 35+), and that most people don't know anything about it.