Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

Pekka Paalanen ppaalanen at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 00:24:12 PDT 2015

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.


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

Dear community, which MIT license?

The license recommended in
is the same as
so that is the one, right?

It is the same as what is called "expat" at


More information about the wayland-devel mailing list