[85929] trunk/base/src/port1.0/portlint.tcl

[Dan Ports]

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.)

Dan

-- 
Dan R. K. Ports              MIT CSAIL                http://drkp.net/