I am looking for a copyleft license. My issue with GPLv3 is that it is so hard to understand. I don't want to license my work under terms I do not even understand. Fundamentally, I don't understand it because it, as a strong copyleft license, has to clarify many more legal nuances. So, my thought was to look for a weak copyleft license because I assume these are less complex. I read through MPLv2 and it makes sense and seems great for my purposes. Then I got to section 10.2 and was disappointed:
10.2. Effect of New Versions
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.
Essentially, this means Mozilla can change what copiers can do at any time. I think this is horrible. I am looking for a solution to this problem:
I could remove section 10.2 and rename the license per section 10.3:
10.3. Modified Versions If you create software not governed by this License, and you want to create a new license for such software, you may create and use a modified version of this License if you rename the license and remove any references to the name of the license steward (except to note that such modified license differs from this License).
According to this answer the primary downside to doing so would essentially be that Mozilla could potentially be disinclined to provide legal council to me if requested. Is a modification like this advisable?
I could find another license. I have searched but haven't found a similar one. What is a similar license that doesn't have this bad clause?