> among other things because they hold that Apache-2 is too broad to be a copyright license and thus has to be interpreted as a contract instead. Which is inan

> among other things because they hold that Apache-2 is too broad to be a copyright license and thus has to be interpreted as a contract instead. Which is inane because a copyright license is a contract anyways. My understanding is that the number of lawyers who agree with the OpenBSD position is approximately 0, even in jurisdictions that don't have Anglophone interpretations of contracts and copyright--I haven't seen any lawyer come it in favor of the OpenBSD interpretation here. (Note too that criticism of the GPL doesn't include this--and if Apache is too complicated to be a copyright license, the GPL certainly is.) There is also a certain irony in arguing that clarifying the terms of a license great yields less clarity than not doing so.