Alistair Crooks <agc@pkgsrc.org> writes:

> Thanks for adding all the licen[cs]e definitions, Martti.
>
> One for the licence mavens amongst us: can we make the
> BSD licences into one of:
>
> 	MIT

MIT has used tons of licenses over the years, so "MIT license" is vague.
I used "x11" because that's a particular license text.

> 	BSD-3clause
> 	BSD-4clause
>
> please? I suspect "modified" means 3 clause here, but if
> we're going to go to all this trouble, I'd prefer it if we
> made it obvious what licence is in use.

Switching to 3clause and 4clause is ok with me.

> And, secondly, why is it GNU-GPL-v[23], the "GNU-" bit is
> unnecessary. Or maybe we should call the BSD ones
>
> 	Berkeley-BSD-4clause

It's different.  BSD stands for Berkeley Software Distribution.  GPL
stands for "General Public License" and the FSF people call it "GNU
General Public License" when being formal/careful.