Re: [PATCH 10/11] cursor-data.h: Change SuSE licensed code from X11 to Expat

On Thursday 11 June 2015 11:55:48 Pekka Paalanen wrote: > I don't think we should change this one at all. As you see from the > copyright, this code was copied from elsewhere. I think Keith Packard is more than capable to comment on that on his own. ___

Re: [PATCH 10/11] cursor-data.h: Change SuSE licensed code from X11 to Expat

On Wednesday 10 June 2015 11:55:21 Bryce Harrington wrote: > The license text for this file mentions SuSE specifically, however it is > otherwise identical to all the other MIT X11 licensed code in Wayland, > and so can be changed to the substantially identical MIT Expat license. > > Signed-off-by

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

On Friday 05 June 2015 10:24:12 Pekka Paalanen wrote: > Any reason he's not in CC here, btw? I didn't think of it. > - notify people explicitly that we are going to do this, also for new > files using the old license text that get in during the waiting time > (patch cover letter) I think K

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

Good news: I asked by FSFE lawyer buddy. He said that since basically all simply assumed that it's the MIT license, the wrongly pasted license header would constitute a wrongly attached label and be "Falsa demonstratio non nocet" (that legal term has a German and a Finnish Wikipedia article), t

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

On Monday 01 June 2015 10:16:32 Pekka Paalanen wrote: > since I'm not completely alone with my worries here, I too would like to > hear what your friend has to say before we do any changes. I do not > have any such connections myself. I expect to see him in person Thursday, unless he's on holiday

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

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 equival

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

On Friday 29 May 2015 18:55:43 Pekka Paalanen wrote: > What is the benefit of using a licence that has been officially > endorsed by FSF? Is that a prerequisite for FSF to defend a project > in court? No, it has nothing to do with court cases. FSF endorsement is important to some. I personally do

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

On Friday 29 May 2015 10:21:00 Pekka Paalanen wrote: > I've always been confused with the myriad of slightly differently > worded "MIT-like" licences. Me too. That's why I personally like the BSD licenses most where IMO the language is the easiest to understand but that's just my opinion and not

Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

Hi there. I'm one of the authors of Wayland's Wikipedia article . While writing it we noticed some discrepancies in your licensing. Your FAQ states that Wayland is MIT-licensed