Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

[Markus Slopianka]

Hi there.
I'm one of the authors of Wayland's Wikipedia article 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_%28display_server_protocol%29>.
While writing it we noticed some discrepancies in your licensing.

Your FAQ states that Wayland is MIT-licensed 
<http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_1> although the actual 
license text <http://cgit.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland/tree/COPYING> uses 
the wording from the deprecated Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer 
(HPND) license <http://opensource.org/licenses/HPND>.

This, btw, also leads to the weird situation that this particular wording has 
not been declared a Free Software license and GPL-compatible by the FSF (even 
though there are no clauses that would prevent that).

The HPND is also not just a simple re-wording of the MIT license because the 
HPND carries a no-promotion clause like §3 of the 3-clause BSD license 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#3-clause>.

The easy but still awkward solution (because the HPND is deprecated) is to 
simply fix the FAQ.
However, I'd suggest to replace the HPND text with the 3-clause BSD license. 
The 3-clause BSD license is functionally the same, just with different wording.
As such replacing the license text would IMO not be a re-licensing of Wayland 
in the sense that each developer (or 95%, according to Mozilla 
<https://blogs.fsfe.org/ciaran/?p=58>) would have to agree with it.
As I see it, it would merely be a editorial change like correcting bad grammar 
or a typo.

Markus