You are welcome.
Yes, according to Fedora Licensing Guidelines , you should use the
same short name ‘MIT’ for either Expat license, X11 license, SGI FSL-B
2.0 and several other similar but not identical licenses. (That would
not be true, however, if you wanted to make Debian package, for instance).
On 25/02/15 18:31, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25.2.2015 01:42, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> This is SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 which is described on
in a following way :
> The SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 is a free software
> license. It is essentially identical to the X11 License , with
> an optional alternative way of providing license notices.
> and marked with a green line as compatible with GNU GPL.
> Is it ‘just MIT’ or not, depends on what you call ‘just MIT’. There are
> at least two popular MIT licenses: Expat  and X11 ; if both are
> ‘just MIT’ to you, then SGI FSL-B 2.0 is too. Its last paragraph is a
> non-endorsement clause identical to that of the latter one. It’s the
> second paragraph that makes SGI FSL-B 2.0 different from either Expat
> and X11; to be precise it makes it slightly more permissive, allowing
> hyperlinking to license (à la Creative Commons Attribution) instead of
> providing its full text. (However, I have no idea, who might take
> advantage from this permission – the full legal text is just 25 lines
> : https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#SGIFreeB
> : https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License
> : https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
> : https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:X11
as "just MIT" I meant if I should use "MIT" in the RPM license tag.