The license is currently the MPL 2.0, so I wouldn't be able to use this at work. This is because any derivative work might have to also be licensed as MPL, even if I just used it in an unrelated project. The MPL is less copyleft than something like the GPL v3 because to my knowledge it applies on a per-file basis rather than any derivative work, but I Am Not A Lawyer and I don't want to accidentally get my employer/myself into a copyright infringement, even if in good faith.
Would you consider re-licensing under a permissive and not reciprocal license like the MIT or Apache 2.0 licenses? (Or better yet, both).
There is strong precedent for re-licensing under these, rust itself avoids the MPL.
Note that you might have to get the explicit approval of contributors, like bevy did
The license is currently the MPL 2.0, so I wouldn't be able to use this at work. This is because any derivative work might have to also be licensed as MPL, even if I just used it in an unrelated project. The MPL is less copyleft than something like the GPL v3 because to my knowledge it applies on a per-file basis rather than any derivative work, but I Am Not A Lawyer and I don't want to accidentally get my employer/myself into a copyright infringement, even if in good faith.
Would you consider re-licensing under a permissive and not reciprocal license like the MIT or Apache 2.0 licenses? (Or better yet, both). There is strong precedent for re-licensing under these, rust itself avoids the MPL.
Note that you might have to get the explicit approval of contributors, like bevy did