The wording in the license is very clear.  Which part of the highlighted
text do you have concerns with?

You can double check with Legal if you want, but this is definitely not a
blocker issue for Carlos experimenting with MDL-FlexJS integration.

Thanks,
Om

On Oct 14, 2016 4:40 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Justin, please see my earlier response.  We dont need to worry about the
> > license if we are using scss to generate the css.
>
> I would prefer that that be confirmed, this is not a minor issue like a
> header being missing. If we accidentally include CC source in our release
> it alters the terms of the Apache license, see point 2 in [1]. Legal JIRAs
> here [2] is the most relevant (but there are several others). This thread
> is where it was discussed [3] in particular [4][5].
>
> We do still need to worry about the missing NOTICE and the missing MIT
> license (if we include that file) as that has nothing to do with using
> css/scss files.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#criteria
> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167
> 3. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-
> discuss/201507.mbox/%3cCAPqz87pYe5c7-7cUpKQ5uZTbmFhYPosJ9PWL78qU+
> zt-lap...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> 4. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-
> discuss/201507.mbox/%3cCAFG6u8EJEYUswGw6o8RZazVaRFO
> zzwvmgG3R1ZT_eYjQ7=l...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> 5. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-
> discuss/201507.mbox/%3cf7a0b868-df13-432e-9b50-8c11eeff8...@jagunet.com%3e

Reply via email to