There is another risk with MIT licence: it doesn't address patents, so if a single company (Samsung, LG whoever) gets a patent that covers the display server, then they - and only they - can produce a closed source version. People keep saying that the Wayland licence enforces equality, but it doesn't even attempt to address the big problem of patents. Even disregarding the patent issue, if a company does make a successful closed source fork, then they can build upon that fork, because it is now owned by them. No other company will be allowed to use that fork in their own product. Equality ceases for forks and patents, whereas the GPL3 ensures that equality extends to forks and patented versions.
Originally Posted by mrugiero