On 07/05/2009 02:18 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
during a package review I have found another BSD/MIT license issue for
which I'd like to get some advice:
The package "ewl" from the enlightenment project contains a COPYING file
 which looks much more similar to an MIT license then to a BSD license.
However, the spec file which is included in the upstream tarball
explicitly states BSD.
In various discussions on their mailing list "E-devel" the developers
also usually refer only to the BSD license (e.g. ).
Any help is appreciated!
The license you're referencing is:
Free, but GPL incompatible.
Use this for the spec:
License: MIT with advertising
The fact that upstream incorrectly refers to it as "BSD" is irrelevant. :)