diff --git a/content/getting-started/licensing.md b/content/getting-started/licensing.md
index 0a76570..187da3f 100644
--- a/content/getting-started/licensing.md
+++ b/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.