Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

[Markus Slopianka]

On Friday 29 May 2015 10:21:00 Pekka Paalanen wrote:

> I've always been confused with the myriad of slightly differently
> worded "MIT-like" licences.

Me too. That's why I personally like the BSD licenses most where IMO the 
language is the easiest to understand but that's just my opinion and not the 
reason why I wrote the mail.

> but I don't know who Markus is

Not sure if my background matters but just for full disclosure:
I was a German KDE translator (before I decided to just use all my systems in 
English), managed one or two K3b releases (before CD burning died), started 
packaging Linux software a few months ago (for Fedora and openSUSE), 
contribute to OpenStreetMap and OpenWLANMap, and I am a Wikipedia editor since 
over 12 years, although these days I mostly look over a few Linux-related 
articles to make sure the info there is not wrong.

> I do not trust Wikipedia.

I can't and won't speak for the entire Wikipedia community.
I'm mostly interested that the articles I watch over are correct.
Wayland's licensing caused some confusion which is why I wrote my mail.

> I would probably trust information officially published by
> opensource.org and FSF, so pointers there that we can and should do
> this change would be appreciated.

Well, I linked to the opensource.org license text where it says in red letters 
that the HPND "has been voluntarily deprecated by its author" but here it is 
again: http://opensource.org/licenses/HPND