[Scaevolus]

A patent grant is a license.

The patent license is indeed independent of the copyright license, but it's troubling enough that multiple legal teams (Apache and Google, at least) don't want to entangle themselves with it.

I'm doubtful that any licensing scheme can significantly drive patent reform. Lobbying and legal precedents hold that capability.

[IanKelling]

> multiple legal teams (Apache and Google, at least) don't want to entangle themselves with it.

Citation needed on Google. Apache isn't "not wanting to be entangled", they reject EVERY license which gives stronger protections for user freedoms than apache license alone, like the gpl, lgpl, cddl, mpl, etc, etc, etc. Google has no problem using the gpl for linux and lots of licenses and projects that apache would reject, so you can't just lump them together like it's the same thing.

[sanxiyn]

DannyBee is on this thread. That is good enough citation for me.

[IanKelling]

Fair enough. And my point about why Apache avoids stronger licenses actually applies to google too, but they are just more flexible about it on a case by case basis.