If I make some typographical changes to the default MIT license, does it still count as the MIT license?ExampleCopyright (c) [year], [organisation]Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.I changed (c) to , and added a comma after the year. I know it still counts as a license, but is it the MIT license or my own license?
Can I make typographical changes to the MIT license?
mit;license notice;license file
The copyright line isn't actually part of the license, it's a separate entity. So changing that doesn't change the license. In fact  is the correct form, so that change at least counts as an improvement in my book.Beyond that though I'd stick to the canonical form of the license if there is one. The MIT license itself has many slight variants, so the FSF encourages people to reference the Expat license instead. (The existence of variations of the MIT license as used by the MIT provides an answer to your question of course...)