The problem is your second requirement:
allows you to do pretty much what you want if you do not distribute the sources
can be used to defeat the first requirement:
allows you to distribute the sources, as long as they are under the same license
For example, suppose person A compiles your code with a compiler that includes so much debugging information that 1:1 copy of the source can be recovered. Because you want this compiled form to be distributable without restrictions, person A can give this binary to person B without restrictions, and person B can decompile it to recover the source, which can then be redistributed without restrictions because B got the compiled binary files without restrictions.
So if you want a license that restricts the right to distribute the source code, it is going to have to have provisions that restrict the rights to distribute binaries as well.
The main difference between LGPL and MPL is that LGPL stipulates that a combination with proprietary components must have a way to relink the LGPL parts, while MPL requires only disclosure of the source for the MPL parts, but does not require a practical way to relink. Certainly neither allows binary distribution without releasing the source for the copyleft part of the combined application.