It does appear to be largely identical. Is it not common practice to include the name of the MIT license with the distribution, as is the case with the GPL and Apache licenses?
No, not that I have seen. It's only called the MIT license because MIT used it for their software (X, Athena, etc). The BSD license is a similar situation; it doesn't say BSD in it anywhere, it's only called that because it was used by BSD. Plus these days, neither of those licenses are overseen by who named them - vs the Apache and GNU GPL which have version numbers and caretakers, if you will.
