You wrote that "it was smart to go with a permissive license instead of the
GPL" and I pointed out that the main difference it makes is the possibility
to surround the free core with proprietary software. Given Microsoft history,
I even assumed it is their business plan. I have no sympathy for companies
whose business plan is to use free software to eventually make the users fall
into proprietary traps. You then suggested the "Mozilla Public License 2.0".
It raises the exact same problem.
We went over that so many times that it starts to be tiresome: free software
is about granting freedoms to users, not to developers. Just read its
definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Even reading the sole introduction is enough to get it (and I believe you got
it but want to convince yourself that it is OK for you to enjoy the work put
into permissively-licensed software and develop proprietary software):
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and
community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software”
is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should
think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”.
We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these
freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program
and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a
“nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the
users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an
instrument of unjust power.
