Licenses: being finicky

[tlaronde at kergis.com]

Some meson.build, for example, have a SPDX-License-Identifier: tag,
where "MIT" is mentionned, applying (I think) to the file itself, and
the project has an entry with a pair (license: 'MIT') applying to the
data by itself.

But, for example, xcbproto has a license with a (classical, for me)
fourth clause forbiding use of the names of the authors without
permission to advertise etc.

Acoording to:

https://spdx.org/licenses/

this is identified as "X11", the "MIT" being the same without this
fourth paragraph. (I suspect this distinction is rather new.)

When creating meson files for building, is there some rule regarding
this? 

I think that the correct way is to state 'X11' or 'MIT' or
whatever matches COPYING or COPYRIGHTS or whatever file explains the
license status and to conform, simply because this exists and is
standardized, to the SPDX list of identifiers.

What do other think about this?

Note: I'm not planing to review "correct" attribution between X11 and
MIT in all the Xorg projects---I'm sufficiently late on my schedule
with what I have to do without starting to rover around. Furthermore,
X11 has been historically identified as 'MIT'...
-- 
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
                     http://www.kergis.com/
                    http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C