[chrisco255]

Probably because they have no patents that cover the concepts these libraries introduce. Perhaps wit some of the others they will go Apache v2. People have been so worked up by the FUD that Facebook can't even relicense under MIT one of the de facto open source licenses without being met with suspicion.

[magicalist]

> Probably because they have no patents that cover the concepts these libraries introduce.

Apache 2.0 certainly doesn't require you to have patents in order to use it ("applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)")

[ergo14]

They have the patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242. Just MIT is a good option, I don't really understand why they don't want to "fix" the patent grant to be like Apache 2.0 or Google's. Why relicense everything when fixing 1 sentence would fix the problem completely.