Confusion Mounts Over Wayland's Actual License

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Confusion Mounts Over Wayland's Actual License

It turns out, Wayland's code license may have been slightly incorrect all these years and doesn't comply with the FSF / open-source definition...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Wayland-MIT-License-Worries

[Awesomeness]

I assumed it was the most recent/modern version of the MIT license

Roflcopter

[TheBlackCat]

It is essentially identical to one of the Python licenses that has been approved by the FSF.

[k1l_]

this is what you get, when you find a large open source project using an outdated and wrong license and give a hint on the mailinglist, provide facts and give a possible solution or direct into other solutions: "How can I trust that you know better, and this really is ok?" and "I trust Kristian, but I don't know who Markus is, and I do not trust Wikipedia."

wayland is run by big companies with rooms full of lawyers. with help of the fsf that should be very easy to sort out without the need to go adhominem at the volunteer that found the mistake your project did.

[KAMiKAZOW]

I'm surprised my mail ended up on Phoronix. 😀😀

[utack]

Doesn't MIT allow companies to change and ship Wayland without ever releasing the source code of their changes?

[GreatEmerald]

Huh, so it's actually the Modified BSD License, as opposed to the Expat license. Welp. And the funny thing is that due to the discrepancy, some contributors would have thought it was under Modified BSD (those who read COPYING), and some would have thought it's under Expat (having read the FAQ), so I don't see any way to go but to try and contact every contributor. Hoo boy.

[johnc]

Aren't we overdue for a complete rewrite of the graphics stack anyway? Wayland is practically ancient code by now.

[KAMiKAZOW]

Doesn't MIT allow companies to change and ship Wayland without ever releasing the source code of their changes?

Yes. So does the HPND license and all BSD and Apache licenses.

[KAMiKAZOW]

Huh, so it's actually the Modified BSD License, as opposed to the Expat license.

No, the the HPND license works the same as the Modified BSD License but it's not the same text. That's why suggestion was to use the BSD text as it also has the promotion clause.
But if they want to switch to proper MIT, that's fine, too. According to the FSFE link in my email: As long as no one vetoes, 95% approval is enough for full relicensing. Considering that Red Hat and Intel alone probably account for 95% of the code, that should be easy to achieve.

some contributors would have thought it was under Modified BSD (those who read COPYING), and some would have thought it's under Expat (having read the FAQ), so I don't see any way to go but to try and contact every contributor. Hoo boy.

I don't see the FAQ being legally binding. The license in each file's header is.