actually not. the wayland guys got angry because of the wrong claims about wayland ubuntu provided as explenations for their initiative to make mir.
if the above reason you mentioned would be alone then i would like to ask you:
why should they? where is written that they or anybody else has an obigation to talk to the devs of an not even yet used project?
who has the right to demand such nonsense? you?
Way to fail to read my post beyond the first sentence. I explicitly pointed out that Canonical FUDed about Wayland, however if it had been just FUDing after failing to work with wayland with them starting up Mir that would have been one thing, there would have still been outrage but it would have been muted compared to this as canonical's actions would have been at least somewhat understandable. That they didn't even try and then decided to FUD about wayland and make their own display server that's why there's the extreme outrage, that is what I was getting at.
The whole deal with Mir does leave a bad taste in my mouth; but then, so does the decision RAOF compared it to: Lennart starting systemd instead of continuing to work on upstart.
There are differences between those cases though. Lennart may be a bit abrasive sometimes, but when he started systemd, he did so from a position of knowing what he was talking about, having done his research on the strengths and weaknesses of existing systems, including Upstart. His reasons are all well documented, and while people might not agree with all of it, the reasoning is generally sound.
In contrast, look at the Mir developers. They've started their project working in isolation from other experts who might give useful feedback, justified their project's existence on the basis of supposed flaws in Wayland, and then been forced to back down and admit they have no idea what they're talking about.
You know what Canonical/Ubuntu brought Linux? Public Awareness. In the mind of the consumer, Ubuntu = Linux. If Ubuntu never came around, Linux would still be in the same state in was in 2005, holding <.5% market share, nothing more then a toy OS.
Nonsense. In the mind of the consumer, "what's Linux?", and "what's Ubuntu?". Seriously, the average computer user still has no idea what either of them are...
And you seem to assume a lot of stuff you know nothing about, like what I know and what I don't. I'm perfectly aware of the X11 license, that's why I said I was annoyed by it. And while the CLA in unfortunate, its less bad than so-called "permissive" license which gives anybody and everybody the right to abuse users by taking the freedom which many value (albeit not all, including you it seems) from them by the way of proprietary software.
How is the CLA less bad than the permissive licenses? The CLA gives Canonical the right to switch away from GPL to their own proprietary license at a moments notice since they own all the copyright.