Hi, > I assumed since MIT is supposedly as friendly as Apache, that all licenses > in an MIT package were also Category A or B.
Sadly this is not always the case for instance MIT is comparable with GPL but that doesn't mean we can use a MIT licensed bundle containing GPL software in Apache licensed code. Likewise the Apache 2.0 license itself also also compatible with GPL (i.e. GPL software can bundle Apache license software) but not the other way arround. > 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? Any Apache comparable licence would be fine, given they license other files under MIT that’s probably the easiest for them. > 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. I think that may of recently changed I’ll find the details and post here. Thanks, Justin
