Thanks I didn't know that. For those interested, here are the top 5 results I found from searching "apache 2 license software patent" on duckduckgo.com: https

Thanks I didn't know that. For those interested, here are the top 5 results I found from searching "apache 2 license software patent" on duckduckgo.com: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-apache-2-patent-license https://opensource.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-apache-2-... https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-what-does-the-apache-2-0-patent-clause-protect https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-... http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences... https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html Edit: looks like Apache 2 is compatible with GPLv3 but only in one direction. So if an Apache 2 work is derived from a GPLv3 work then it must be distributed under GPLv3 as well. Personally I've always preferred the MIT license over the GPL because I feel that the emergent effects of the spread of free software are more important than any incentive to create free software, but I might switch to Apache 2 now. I wonder if there is any precedent from other cases where a company sued a competitor but the case was thrown out because the plaintiff was ruled to not really be a competitor (because it never sold anything).