Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

[Markus Slopianka]

On Monday 01 June 2015 09:26:56 Peter Hutterer wrote:

> I would venture that going to proper MIT wording counts as relicensing
> because the two texts are not functionally equivalent: the "don't use my
> name for advertising" is clearly missing.
> 
> AFAICT, the X11 license is functionally equivalent though:
> http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:X11

Same with the 3-clause BSD license which is less "exotic".


> 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.