That's the 3-Clause BSD license [0], which is arguably more open than the GPL (On varying definitions of "openness" at least. It's very lax, although it doesn't prevent patent treachery)
The license is pretty much AS-IS license that tells nothing of copyright or potential patents behind this, and simply covers google of any claims against them. It doesn't grant anything to licensee, for open or commercial use, nor clarifies any sticky points.
Compare that to Apache 2.0's 2nd and 3rd clauses:
"2. Grant of Copyright License.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
3. Grant of Patent License.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
[0] https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause