License name is misleading

[mmu_man]

The "MIT" license does not actually exist. It's a nickname to the X11 license, which is close to the revised BSD one. But the MIT has used many license over time. Even though it's a known fact and might legally work, naming which we mean is much better. We should choose either X11 or BSD-revised, and use the correct name everywhere. See ​http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License

[andreasf]

Axel recently changed my "MIT/X11" to "MIT", saying it was redundant.

My view is that [​http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT MIT| is an institution, so it is as accurate as saying FSF license (instead of GPLv2, ...). I guess that's what the GNU link above is trying to say.

The OSI lists it as ​MIT License though, so it can't be totally wrong.

[bonefish]

Wikipedia knows the term ​MIT license, too. Given the name of our OS, it would be consequent to switch to the basically equivalent ​Poetic License, BTW. :-)