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

[Joshua Root]

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