I'm confused. The post he's responding to is just saying that they want to move to the Apache 2.0 license if possible. Chris certainly doesn't seem to be assumi

I'm confused. The post he's responding to is just saying that they want to move to the Apache 2.0 license if possible. Chris certainly doesn't seem to be assuming they can just flick a switch and make it happen, considering he talks about "logistics" and is pretty clear it is still in the discussion stage. Is it a dick move just to ask the contributors if they're willing to provide the code under the Apache 2.0 license so people can use LLVM without worrying about being sued for patent infringement? This looks to me like Apple and other corporate contributors with large patent portfolios giving users without such bargaining chips some protections from litigation. I find it hard to see that as a bad thing, unless they were in fact deciding to pretend they own the copyright of the whole project and dare contributors to sue them. Thus far I see no evidence of that.