Hi Mark:

Forgive the manual formatting...I'm stuck with outlook ;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Kettenis [mailto:mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl]
> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 1:45 PM

[snip]

> But the contributor agreement only applies for people that want to
> contribute their code back to the EDK II codebase.

So I don't believe that's right.

The Contributor Agreement requires you to provide patent licenses, as
Does Apache 2.0, for Contributions so that consumers of the code can
enjoy use of that without concern about infringement claims post facto.

No code can get added to the project without the Contributor
signing up to that agreement. It follows then that the Contributor
Agreement is important for *all* users of the code, regardless of
Whether they themselves make contributions or not because without it
there would be no patent protection.

> For end-users of the code, or people that want to simply distribute
> the code or binaries, Apacche 2.0 adds several additional
> restrictions over two clause BSD.

I'd agree with that comparing those two formulations side by side.

However, as I say that comparison is somewhat moot given that EDK II is
not just two clause BSD.

> Thanks for taking the time to write this reply.  I appreciate it.  And
> I really don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion about
> the pros and cons of different licenses.  Our time is better spent on
> writing good software.

No problem! And I agree with that closing thought :)  I'd have left it
but I think the clarification above is important to people reading along.
--
Cheers,

Mark.