I have a concern about the license for Mir. While it is released under a free license, it seems that the license agreement to Canonical for Mir grants some unfair rights to the company. So if they want to, they can release the software under a proprietary license.
First of all, I don't really like this idea, but it does also sound fairly unfair for other parts of the community that involves in the development for Mir. I get the feeling that it sounds like a BSD-license, only that no other that Canonical themselves (except the owners of the code contributed) can change the license to the code.
I do believe many in the community want to contribute to project that follows the ideology of free software to always remain free, and I do believe many might feel that work they put in to the project might be used on premises they won't like in the future. And is it any reason for other distributions to use a solution and contribute to this when another company has these possibilities?
Also, could this also be one of the reasons Intel decided not so support Mir officially.
I also wonder what this will mean for projects like Steam for Linux, application support, and driver support over Mir and Wayland.
This is the part I feel is a little iffy (from Wikipedia: Mir (software)):
I would only like to know if this is the case or not. I don't think I would like to use a distribution that grants these rights to one company.Longtime Linux kernel developer Matthew Garrett criticized choice of licensing for Canonical's software projects, particularly Mir. Unlike X.Org Server and Wayland, both under MIT License, Mir is licensed under GPLv3 – "an odd one" for "GPLv3-hostile markets" – but contributors are required to sign an agreement that "grants Canonical the right to relicense your contribution under their choice of license. This means that, despite not being the sole copyright holder, Canonical are free to relicense your code under a proprietary license". He concludes that this creates asymmetry where "you end up with a situation that looks awfully like Canonical wanting to squash competition by making it impossible for anyone else to sell modified versions of Canonical's software in the same market". Garrett’s concerns were echoed by Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director of the Software Freedom Conservancy.