[the_duke]

Have some examples?

The MIT license is problematic with software patents.

I see some projects moving to Apache2 for that reason (one prominent example here is Rust. They moved to an MIT/Apache2 dual licensing model).

[webwalker]

Here are some that I found that are all created in that window: - https://github.com/Microsoft/Docker-PowerShell - https://github.com/Microsoft/malmo - https://github.com/Microsoft/projection-grid - https://github.com/Microsoft/HoloToolkit-Unity - https://github.com/Microsoft/pxt - https://github.com/Microsoft/BotBuilder - https://github.com/Microsoft/elfie-arriba - https://github.com/Microsoft/team-explorer-everywhere

I could have found more, but its a big org. Any examples I found that used other licenses where that way because they where related to something else that used a previous license (i.e. all TypeScript stuff is Apache2, hence any new TS is still be Apache2 for consistency).

[jsprogrammer]

What is the problem with the MIT license and patents?

The MIT license grants explicit rights to deal in the software without restriction.

[tracker1]

A copyright license is not necessarily the same as a patent grant... Apache 2 does contain a patent grant, and an even bigger nuclear deterrent similar to Facebook's separate grant with MIT.

[jsprogrammer]

The MIT license is not a copyright license (though, copyright is claimed). It is a license for unrestricted dealings in the software subject to certain conditions (no warranty or fitness, appropriate notices given, etc.).