On 3/27/16, 10:12 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote:
>HI, > >> OK, left them this issue >> https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/issues/213 > >That probably could of been worded a little differently. > >If you look at the bundled SVG file you can clearly see what license it >is under: > "fontURL": "http://designmodo.com/flat";, > "designer": "Sergey Shmidt", > "designerURL": "http://designmodo.com";, > "license": "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported", > "licenseURL": "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/“, > >Both the Non Commercial and No Derivatives parts of that license are >incompatible with the Apache license. > >It doesn’t matter if the whole bundle is licensed under MIT. I’m sure you >know just because a package is under MIT that doesn’t mean that all files >in that bundle are also licensed MIT. Just like you can bundle >differently licensed files in an Apache licensed bundle i.e. MIT and BSD >or even CDDL (for binaries). I assumed since MIT is supposedly as friendly as Apache, that all licenses in an MIT package were also Category A or B. I didn't think I had to go digging through their IP, especially since it was the basis for the FlatSpark theme. I saw your note on the issue. Why couldn't they use some other CC license like CC-BY that doesn't have NC and/or ND? The link for CC-A in Legal Resolved [2] seems to end up at CC-BY. I've never been clear whether they are the same or not. I thought many forms of CC could be used in binary packages. -Alex [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
