I am not a lawyer, but I work in an open source programs office and am currently working specifically on open source license compliance.
Beyond what the sibling comments have said about LGPL sounding more like what you're going for, I'll just note that if you'd like broad adoption of this while still ensuring that changes to your code remain open, you might also want to consider the Mozilla Public License.
From what I understand of MPL and LGPL is that MPL is better for instances where dynamic linking isn't possible. The MPL basically says that any changes _to the files you created_ must be available under the MPL, preserving their public availability.
That said, most organizations are fine with the LGPL, but it just gets gnarly if there are instances where you really want to statically link something but you still fully want to support the original library's openness.
Beyond what the sibling comments have said about LGPL sounding more like what you're going for, I'll just note that if you'd like broad adoption of this while still ensuring that changes to your code remain open, you might also want to consider the Mozilla Public License.
From what I understand of MPL and LGPL is that MPL is better for instances where dynamic linking isn't possible. The MPL basically says that any changes _to the files you created_ must be available under the MPL, preserving their public availability.
That said, most organizations are fine with the LGPL, but it just gets gnarly if there are instances where you really want to statically link something but you still fully want to support the original library's openness.