Re: mit license is ambiguous

[matthew sporleder <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM,  <rodent%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> They're not ranting. These two licenses show a difference (entire clause) 
> when compared with wdiff. Considering on the material presented in the 
> original email, our working policy regarding license differences, and 
> allowing the FSF and OSI to handle license issues for pkgsrc, on what do you 
> base your objection?


I think what we have called "mit" is generally accepted as the defacto
"MIT License"

The X11 license is generally understood to be the X11 license.  I've
never heard of the MIT license being called 'expat' until your email.

Google Code uses the Expat version, for example, when naming the MIT license.