Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

[Peter Hutterer]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 02:09:43AM +0200, Markus Slopianka wrote:
> 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".

yeah, the problem here is another one though: the X11 license is often
referred to as MIT license and vice versa. having a history of saying
"wayland is MIT-licensed" and using the X11 license is not much of a jump.
moving to a BSD license is going to be harder to justify, even if the
license-text is the same.

A check of the text on wikipedia also makes me wonder if the second clause
is actually identical to the blurbs we currently have. I really don't know,
but given that the BSD license explicitly lists source vs binary and ours
doesn't, that could cause problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#3-clause

> > 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.

Cheers,
   Peter