Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
Have to agree with that. However, Canonical (and only Canonical, except in the case all of the contributors agree on that) can sublicense, which is additionally release the software under another license, but this is not retroactive. The consequence would be that they can make closed derivatives, while nobody else can (the only difference with having it under the MIT license is that the latter allows anyone to do the same thing).
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.