BTW.: etoys.image is licensed officially under Apache License, Version
2.0 now because VPRI has taken the responsibility for this step. Does
it mean that we can take any code from this image without fear that
there will be any licensing quarrel at law in future? Does it mean
that we can tell in this case that we used this code in good faith
that it's clean from the law POV and delegate it to VPRI? Is it ok for
Software Freedom Conservancy?

-- Pavel

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There is another very good reason for redoing 3.10: all
>> contributions to 3.10 were made after the effective date of the
>> license agreements (November 2006), so, unless the authors of
>>
>
> They were and all contributors knew this, there is NO WAY that 3.10 should
> be considered unclean!
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>