fix(docs): correct MIT license patent grant description

The documentation incorrectly stated that the MIT license does not
contain a patent provision. Legal analysis (as discussed in the
referenced Red Hat article by Richard Fontana) indicates that the
MIT License's broad grant language may constitute an implicit
patent license. This commit clarifies the distinction between
implicit and explicit patent grants.

Changes:
- Patent usage section: acknowledge implicit patent grant, clarify
  that the issue is lack of explicit patent language
- Decision diagram: reframe question about patent provisions
- Conflicts-of-interest: correct characterization of MIT patent
  coverage as implicit rather than missing

Fixes: Codeberg/Documentation#468

content/getting-started/licensing.md

@@ -45,9 +45,9 @@ project to remain small (e.g. less than 300 lines)?
   - Yes --> Do you want to allow people to use your code as a library and not disclose the source-code of their main program?
     - No --> we recommend using the **GPL-3.0-or-later** license
     - 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 --> Do you want an explicit patent grant and retaliation clause in your license?
+  - Yes --> We recommend using the **Apache-2.0** license
+  - No --> We recommend using the **MIT** license
 
 ## Correctly applying a license
 
@@ -100,17 +100,20 @@ 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.
+Some permissive/temporarily-open licenses like the MIT license do not contain an explicit patent provision
+granting the users the right to use their patents.
+However, legal analysis suggests that the MIT License's broad grant —
+"permission to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
+modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software" — may constitute an
+[implicit patent license](https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license) as well, since the grant is
+not limited to any particular flavor of intellectual property rights.
+Nonetheless, the absence of an explicit patent clause creates legal uncertainty compared to licenses like Apache-2.0,
+which contains a clearly defined patent grant and retaliation clause.
 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.
+In this case, while the license may implicitly cover the use of that patent, the lack of explicit language means
+the right to use the patented algorithm is less certain than with a license containing an express patent provision.
 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.
+presumably because of the implicit rather than explicit patent grant.
 
 For further information on "patents and free software", head over to [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_software).
 
@@ -146,7 +149,8 @@ For more information on license compatibility, we recommend the commented [licen
 The open-source community is represented by a variety of groups with different, and sometimes opposite, interests.
 For example, the prominent websites [ChooseALicense.com](https://choosealicense.com) is curated by GitHub and can be
 assumed to reflect at least partially the interests of Microsoft; this website presents, for example GPL last on the
-front page and it is silent about the missing patent clause in the MIT license both in the front page and in the
+front page and it does not discuss the implicit (rather than explicit) patent grant in the MIT license
+either on the front page or on the
 [dedicated page](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/).
 Moreover, the wording "I want it simple and permissive" can induce people to favour the MIT license; laypeople will want
 to have legal matters simple, and "permissive" sounds like fair and good.