Hi, I saw the two sources you have.
First source explicitly mentions, “What the court will see is that the language is intentionally broad and open-ended”, and in response to “It gives licensees a strong argument against any claim by a licensor that they didn’t give permission for the licensee to do that specific thing with the software, even if the thought clearly didn’t occur to either side when the license was given.”, I have explicitly stated that I believe with usage permissions and the broad range of technology and creative works it mentions, this area should be more covered.
Also the second source seems to be in my case:
“Now, let’s return to the MIT License. There is an express license. Does that express license grant patent rights? Indeed, with permission granted “to deal in the Software without restriction,” it does. And there is no need to arrive at that conclusion via anything more than a direct reading of the words that grant the license.”
I also want to emphasize that the only actual restriction of my license is including the license file which is default.
This context is taking from the first source seen here and the second source is here. Those are direct word for word quotations.
I said, I understand your main point and am taking it into consideration. This doesn’t mean that I am wrong or that either one of my licenses are invalid. You are making it sound like both of those two sources are fully against my statements when they aren’t (at least my takeaway).
Like I said, we agree to disagree.