On 08/19/2016 05:51 PM, kendell clark via arch-general wrote:
but I bet it's probably lax on the patent front or microsoft wouldn't have chosen it. So we could, theoretically, get into trouble packaging it for arch, although I don't think it's likely.
I don't think this is really appropriate. If you want to make a claim that we should not package it for leagal regions, you really *should* base it on sound legal observations, not based on *bets*.
As far as I know, Apache License 2.0 is not harmful. FYI: https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-(apache-2.0) Kwang
