Fix incorrect license recommendation. Closes #468 (#746)

See https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-Clear.html and
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7559/patent-rights-bsd-3-clause-clear-vs-bsd-3-clause.

Co-authored-by: David Anselmi <danselmi@intecrowd.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/746
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>

content/getting-started/licensing.md

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ project to remain small (e.g. less than 300 lines)?
     - Yes --> we recommend using the **LGPL-3.0-or-later** license
 - Yes --> Do you want to be able to sue users of your code for [patent infringement](#patent-usage) implemented in the code?
   - No --> We recommend using the **Apache-2.0** license
-  - Yes --> We recommend using the **MIT** license
+  - Yes --> We recommend using the **BSD 3-Clause Clear** license
 
 ## Correctly applying a license
 
@@ -74,8 +74,9 @@ One of the major distinctions between licenses is between:
    the code include contractual law, but that is rarely used for software licenses.
 
 2. Licenses which permit to close the source, i.e. temporarily-open licenses.
-   These licenses are usually known as permissive licenses. The MIT license or the Apache license belong to this category.
-   The term "permissive" often causes confusion, because it sounds fair and good to inexperienced people.
+   These licenses are usually known as permissive licenses. The MIT license, the BSD license, or the Apache license belong to
+   this category.
+   The term "permissive" often causes confusion, because it sounds fair and good to unexperienced people.
    People who contribute to the development of a program released with a permissive license must be aware that the
    program could become proprietary at any time. For example, when a company hires the original team of developers.
 
@@ -100,17 +101,11 @@ limited versions (crippleware), advertising-supported software (e.g. antivirus),
 
 ### Patent usage
 
-Some permissive/temporarily-open licenses like the MIT license do not contain a patent provision granting the users the
-right to use their patents.
-For example, the code might be licensed under the MIT license, but implements an algorithm which is protected by a patent.
-In this case, the license might allow to copy, modify and distribute the code but at the same time does not guarantee
-the right to use the patented algorithm.
-It is a common argument in favour of the MIT license to claim that no public lawsuit has ever been conducted yet.
-Still, the threat to be sued remains, and it can be used to exert pressure. Some, if not most, license disputes moreover
-are settled even [before reaching the court](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html) and could therefore
-leave no trace.
-Even Google [avoided the use of the MIT license when developing Android](https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses),
-presumably because of the missing patent provision.
+Some permissive/temporarily-open licenses like the Apache-2.0 license contain a patent provision explicitly granting the
+users the right to use their patents. Some, like the BSD 3-Clause Clear license explicitly do not grant the right to use
+their patents. And some, like the MIT license, do not mention patents, making it arguable that they [implicitly grant](https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license)
+patent rights, or that they [do not](https://web.archive.org/web/20190312190935/http://stlr.org/2018/10/15/the-truth-about-oss-frand-by-all-indications-compatible-models-in-standards-settings/).
+We recommend that you use a license with a clear statement so your users know your specific intent.
 
 For further information on "patents and free software", head over to [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_software).