Doc Freemo 
@drewdevault@fosstodon.org
It literally did, though as pointed out by another commenter it didnt require a complete rewrite only partial, but did require a complet reorg and rename.
I mean I prefer the MIT license personally but I've never felt the need to just invent shit to defend it, much less shit that is quick and easy to look up and identify as bullshit. What's the goal here, I wonder?
Here is a quote from wikipedia basically agreeing with what I said word for word.
> The newer terms are referred to as the XFree86 License 1.1. Many projects relying on XFree86 found the new license unacceptable, and the Free Software Foundation considers it incompatible with the version 2 of the GNU General Public License, though compatible with version 3.
@drewdevault@fosstodon.org
Here's the text of the added clause that was the last straw (the last of many other issues):
> Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
How does that relate to copyleft? The GPL doesn't restrict anyone's ability to market the inclusion of GPL software.
@freemo @khm @drewdevault Right. Sorry, morning brain. It made itself incompatible with the GPL. It was a reason, but it was hardly the only reason. And it's hard to believe Red Hat and other distros - even if they weren't shipping GPL code - would want to wait on express permission anytime they wanted to advertise inclusion of an X window server.