There is the 'Additional Grant for Open-Source Projects' section that seems to permit inclusion in open source project. Do you mind explaining why you think this is not enough? I'm not an expert in licenses so genuinely interested in your take.
Apache 2 is just an example here - the same would apply for practically any open source license.
The one place I imagine it could still work is if the open-source project, say a sqlite browser, includes it as an optional plugin. So the project itself stays open-source, but the grant allows using the proprietary plugin with it.
If they depend on software that carries limitations, I can no longer make that promise to my own users.
Or does their extra license term mean I can ship my own project which is the thinnest possible wrapper around theirs but makes it fully open source? That seems unlikely.
In this aggregate form, there is little difference between pseudocode snippets in a post like this one, versus a well-maintained library getting scraped.
The more I think about it, I don’t even really crave credit so much as the feedback loop that tells me whether I’m doing anything useful.
I haven’t solved this contradiction, so I still release under the MIT license.