On 2011-10-19 19:12 , Dan Ports wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 03:27:43PM +1100, Joshua Root wrote: >> On 2011-10-18 09:35 , Dan Ports wrote: >>> Actually, the X11 license *is* the MIT license. We shouldn't refer to >>> it by two different names. Standardizing on "MIT" also conveniently >>> avoids this special case. >> >> The X11 license has an extra bit at the end: >> >> Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium 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 X Consortium. > > That's true, but in my view that's a sufficiently minor variation that > I wouldn't consider it a distinct license. There are lots of other > instances of similarly small variants (e.g. icu's MIT license contains > an equivalent clause). We don't usually try to characterize them at > that level, much like we don't (and shouldn't) worry about the > distinction between the 2 and 3-clause BSD licenses and variants on the > wording thereof. > > Note that Fedora doesn't bother distinguishing them either: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT > > (I often find Fedora a good resource for licensing issues because they > also try to rpovide standardized license tags for packages.)
I'm not opposed to calling them the same thing. We should probably change 'FreeBSD' (currently used for the 2-clause license, sometimes) to 'BSD' as well. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
