That Canonical's citing of Wayland's limitations were mostly refuted speaks to the larger issue of Canonical just not speaking to the non-Canonical dev community. Or at least this is the perception. Now that Caonical has influence, the non-Canonical devs perceive more and more that Shuttlecock is effectively developing a closed system that abandons the cooperative consensus that has driven community progress in the past. And when their Contributor License Agreement provides for non-free copyright, if Canonical chooses, with contributions toCanonical code, the fear is heightened. Of course the lens/privacy issue confirmed that fear. Basically Canonical is seen as more and more as throwing its corporate weight in ways that aren't pretty. It may or may not be good for linux going mainstream, but it's not pretty.