Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

[Derek Foreman]

On 01/06/15 02:47 AM, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Mon Jun 1 08:16:32 2015 GMT+0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:25:37 +1000
>> Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 02:09:43AM +0200, Markus Slopianka wrote:
>>>> On Monday 01 June 2015 09:26:56 Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> but given that this is a significant rewording of the license text (even if
>>>>> the functionality stays the same) we're basically down to: is this a license
>>>>> change? and I'll have to shrug as well here and defer to the lawyers.
>>>>
>>>> I could ask a FSFE lawyer friend of mine.
>>>
>>> that's d be great, thanks.
>>
>> (re-adding CCs)
>>
>> Hi Markus, Kristian,
>>
>> since I'm not completely alone with my worries here, I too would like to
>> hear what your friend has to say before we do any changes. I do not
>> have any such connections myself.
>>
>> I'm still not really sure which license we would like to pick if we can
>> change it without stomping on any contributor's rights. Maybe the
>> following would be of guidance?
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/COPYING
>>
>> Kristian, isn't the xserver COPYING file's first license (called MIT
>> and preferred) the one you wanted to use?
>>
> IANAL, but since the annouced license was always MIT, and that was the understanding of (all?) contributors, doesn't the repo just have the wrong COPYING file? Isn't it just a “bug”?

I errantly made this assumption too - check the source files.

COPYING contains the same text as the boilerplate license text in pretty
much every source file.  If it's a "bug" it's quite pervasive and long
standing.

Whether that matters or not I don't know, IANAL either.