Hi SPDX,
I was refreshing the license info on a Debian package and found two
licenses that seemed to be MIT-variants that I wasn't sure about. The
reason I looked at it was mostly technical as the current way to
identify them was triggering a lintian warning, but as I said I
wondered what would be correct.

I was not finding the two derivatives in your license list at [1] nor
as an exception in [2].
There are already a bunch of MIT-* identifiers, but none matched the
two that I had.
So I had no "official identifiers" to use and just came up with two for now.

I changed the identifiers like
- MIT(*) -> MIT-ibm
- MIT(**) -> MIT-no-ad
and that satisfies Lintian at least.
The full text of those can be found at [3][4].

I'm full of questions:
- having a look at them, would you think they should be added to your
list and get assigned official identifiers?
- Are these even licenses on their own that deserve an ID?
- Would it need the project or License owner to do such a request?
- I'm neither of that and just looked at it by accident - If needed
I'd be ok to file an issue as outlined in [5] and discuss, but I'm not
sure I could do much more on it.

[1]:https://spdx.org/licenses/
[2]: https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html
[3]: https://github.com/vmware/open-vm-tools/blob/master/open-vm-tools/lib/misc/base64.c#L4
[4]: https://github.com/vmware/open-vm-tools/blob/master/open-vm-tools/services/plugins/resolutionSet/libvmwarectrl.h#L4
[5]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md

--
Christian Ehrhardt
Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd