Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

[Peter Hutterer]

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:24:12AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:17:44 +0200
> Markus Slopianka <kamikazow at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> > Good news: I asked by FSFE lawyer buddy. He said that since basically all 
> > simply assumed that it's the MIT license, the wrongly pasted license header 
> > would constitute a wrongly attached label and be "Falsa demonstratio non 
> > nocet" (that legal term has a German and a Finnish Wikipedia article), 
> > therefore changing it should be no problem (especially since the two licenses 
> > are very similar anyway).
> > 
> > In case you're wondering who I spoke to: Michael Stehmann 
> > <http://www.rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de/>, also known by his nick Mikeadvo, local 
> > FSFE "guru", married to a Debian contributor, personal friend of Werner Koch 
> > (you know: the GnuPG guy), etc.
> > I think his "judgment" should carry enough weight.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thank you! Yes, I am convinced now. :-)
> Any reason he's not in CC here, btw?
> 
> Though it might be arguable whether people thought of MIT license or
> the actual license text we used, I suppose we can proceed in "opt-out"
> rather than "opt-in" fashion then:
> 
> - notify people explicitly that we are going to do this, also for new
>   files using the old license text that get in during the waiting time
>   (patch cover letter)
> - publish patches to change the license text
> - wait a reasonable time (say, to the mid-point of the main 1.9
>   development cycle?) for opposition - I'm sure Phoronix will do the
>   advertising for us...
> - if no opposition, push and be done with it.
> 
> To be clear, by "opt-in" I mean having to extract an acknowledgement
> from every single contributor... err, copyright holder listed in git
> history, which I assume is what we should've done if this counted as
> relicensing.
> 
> Dear community, which MIT license?
> 
> The license recommended in
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/COPYING
> is the same as
> http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
> so that is the one, right?
> 
> It is the same as what is called "expat" at
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat

ACK from me for this license. Once you give the green light, I'll do the
same for libinput.

Cheers,
   Peter