Until that active consent has been sought and freely given, the Foundation are engaged in the cultural equivalent of egregious trademark violation. I agree that using the license that bears that name only adds insult to injury.
Thus my question for @bkuhn, is there another lax license that covers the patent issue as thoroughly as the "Apache 2.0"? If not, maybe FSF/ SFC/ OSI could fork the license under a new and non-violating name?
(3/3)