Just one thing: I find the MPL slightly off-putting.
MPL is a file-level copyleft license, and while it can be combined with other licenses as part of a larger work, my understanding is that any modifications to MPL-licensed files must also be made available to the public.
So if you fix a bug or add some custom behaviour to better integrate with your application or private libraries, you may be compelled to make those public. Extensions in other source files are apparently not considered "modifications", but the extent of the changes you can make without touching the original MPL-ed file(s) may be limited.
See Q9 and Q10 of the MPL FAQ.
It's not necessarily a deal-breaker if the library was incredibly unique and worth the hassle, but if I had a choice between an MIT/Apache-2.0 library and MPL-2.0 library of approximately equal quality, I'd pick the former. The MPL library would need to do something truly exceptional to make me consider it.
As an example, if async-http-client was under MPL2, and I used my WebURL fork in an AppStore app, I would have to make that fork public, even if I didn't want to, because I can't make changes of that level without modifying AHC's original MPL2 files. Personally, I like the freedom to make any changes I think my applications could benefit from, without the obligation to share that with the world, and I consider it important that others have that same level of freedom when using any code that I've written. My philosophy is that sharing should be encouraged, but it should also be a choice.
I remember that we had this discussion before about SwiftJPEG, which was originally licensed as GPLv3. MPL is better (looser) than GPLv3, but it is still copyleft. It's up to you whether you want to actually compel modifications to be open-sourced as a part of the license, but it is worth pointing out.