On 5/9/05, Lothar Schenk <lothar.schenk at gmx.de> wrote:
> Wrong. It is a valid license only if it is a valid license to begin with, i.e.
> if the licensor legally has the right to offer you this license.

Of course, that's largely the licensor's business, not the licensee's
business...

> Section 2 of the Squeak-L defines how derivative works may be sublicensed (and
> is that the same as "relicensed"?). [...]

I am fully aware that the VRI license is not valid in the context of
Squeak-L. However, IP owners may license their stuff under as many
licenses as they choose. So either VRI (conveniently?) overlooked the
Squeak-L, or they did their homework and simply received the stuff
under a different license than the general public.