Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-06-08 Thread Peter Hutterer
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:24:12AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:17:44 +0200 > Markus Slopianka wrote: > > > 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 > > woul

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-06-05 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:50:04 +0200 Markus Slopianka wrote: > On Friday 05 June 2015 10:24:12 Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > > - publish patches to change the license text > > Please do. I'm far from fluent enough with git. Oh, I never meant you to do that personally. Sorry if it sounded that way. I

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-06-05 Thread Markus Slopianka
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

2015-06-05 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:17:44 +0200 Markus Slopianka wrote: > 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 > noce

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-06-04 Thread Markus Slopianka
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

2015-06-01 Thread Derek Foreman
On 01/06/15 02:47 AM, Steven Newbury wrote: > On Mon Jun 1 08:16:32 2015 GMT+0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:25:37 +1000 >> Peter Hutterer wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 02:09:43AM +0200, Markus Slopianka wrote: On Monday 01 June 2015 09:26:56 Peter Hutterer wrote:

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-06-01 Thread Markus Slopianka
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

2015-06-01 Thread Steven Newbury
On Mon Jun 1 08:16:32 2015 GMT+0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:25:37 +1000 > Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 02:09:43AM +0200, Markus Slopianka wrote: > > > On Monday 01 June 2015 09:26:56 Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > > > > > but given that this is a signif

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-06-01 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:25:37 +1000 Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 02:09:43AM +0200, Markus Slopianka wrote: > > On Monday 01 June 2015 09:26:56 Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > > > but given that this is a significant rewording of the license text (even > > > if > > > the functionali

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-31 Thread 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 advertisi

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-31 Thread Markus Slopianka
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

2015-05-31 Thread Peter Hutterer
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:11:56PM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:21:00AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 2015 14:15:52 -0700 > > Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > > > > > Yes, it appears you're correct. The HPND license is widely used in X > > > (even new additio

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-31 Thread Peter Hutterer
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 02:28:10PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2015 22:15:10 +0200 > Markus Slopianka wrote: > > > 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 pre

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-30 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Fri, 29 May 2015 22:15:10 +0200 Markus Slopianka wrote: > 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

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-29 Thread Markus Slopianka
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

2015-05-29 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Fri, 29 May 2015 15:25:44 +0200 Markus Slopianka wrote: > 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

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-29 Thread Markus Slopianka
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

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-29 Thread Jonas Ådahl
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:21:00AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2015 14:15:52 -0700 > Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > > > Yes, it appears you're correct. The HPND license is widely used in X > > (even new additions such as > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/dri3/dri3.c)

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-29 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Thu, 28 May 2015 14:15:52 -0700 Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > Yes, it appears you're correct. The HPND license is widely used in X > (even new additions such as > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/dri3/dri3.c) and I think > I assumed it was the most recent/modern version of the MIT li

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-29 Thread Hardening
Le 28/05/2015 23:15, Kristian Høgsberg a écrit : > Yes, it appears you're correct. The HPND license is widely used in X > (even new additions such as > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/dri3/dri3.c) and I think > I assumed it was the most recent/modern version of the MIT license. It > w

Re: Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-28 Thread Kristian Høgsberg
Yes, it appears you're correct. The HPND license is widely used in X (even new additions such as http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/dri3/dri3.c) and I think I assumed it was the most recent/modern version of the MIT license. It was certainly the intention to change the license to MIT and

Wayland not MIT-licensed / FAQ wrong

2015-05-28 Thread Markus Slopianka
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