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 _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
