Re: mit license is ambiguous

[Alan Barrett <apb%cequrux.com@localhost>]

On Sat, 04 May 2013, rodent%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
> They're not ranting. These two licenses show a difference 
> (entire clause) when compared with wdiff.

Yes, clearly they are two different licences.  So I think that 
pkgsrc should not use the name "mit" to refer to both of them.

I'd suggest using "mit" to refer to the version 
without the advertising clause, as seen in 
<https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat>, 
<http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, and the existing 
pkgsrc/licenses/mit.  I see no need for pkgsrc to rename the "mit" 
licence to "expat", as the FSF seems to have done, and I note 
that the OSI still uses the name "MIT License" to refer to this 
licence.

Then I'd suggest adding "x11" to refer to the MIT/X 
Consortium licence (with the advertising clause), as seen at 
<https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:X11>.

--apb (Alan Barrett)