Looking at https://choosealicense.com/appendix/, we can see that there are a number of licenses that provide patent troll protection, and there are also a few licenses that that do not require attribution (CC0, Unlicense, WTFPL).However, there does not seem to be any licenses that I can find (on that list or elsewhere) that both protect against patent trolls and doesn't require attribution.  does anyone know if such a license exists?If not, is there some reason why the two are necessarily incompatible with each other such that no license could possible exist that provides both?If they are mutually exclusive, is there any reason I wouldn't be able to dual-license my software under Unlicense and Microsoft Public License (to effectively create a scenario where no one needs to provide attribution, but the code is also offers protection against patent trolls?As a software engineer, I want a way to create projects that have the lowest barrier possible, for any type of user.  However, when using CC0/Unlicense/WTFPL I have found that some companies are unable to use my software because it doesn't provide patent protection.  I would like to use a license that offers that protection while also not requiring that users go through the burden of attribution (which can be a bit of a pain when you actually follow through with it).
Is there a license that both provides patent protection and does not require attribution?
licensing;attribution;patents
By patent troll protection, I take it you refer to what the linked site expresses as This license provides an express grant of patent rights from the contributor to the recipient.  It is going to be very difficult to craft a licence that provides that protection but does not even require attribution, because of the problem of derivative works.Suppose that A makes a piece of software, Z, which (s)he releases under such a licence to B, who removes A's attribution and makes a derivative piece of software Z2, which (s)he releases to C under that same licence.Does C still benefit from A's patent covenant?  C will want that to be the case, as if Z needed that covenant to be usable, it is very likely that Z2 will also.  But Z2 contains no record of A's covenant, and if A's patents are later acquired by a troll who then files suit against C, good luck in persuading a court that this piece of software that makes no mention of A or his/her covenant can somehow nonetheless benefit from it.If your clients desire patent protection, then in order for that protection to be meaningful, they are likely to need a licence that imposes some other obligations on them, even if only the obligation to keep the covenant intact.  Oh, and IANAL/IANYL.