Depends on how confident you are in VPRI's license cleanliness. I
don't mean any offense, to VPRI.

A more egregeous example is Heumel Smalltalk which forked a Squeak
(which only 1.1 seems clean).

Of course, you can never be too sure in different jurisdicitons.
That's why we have lawyers.

On 5/15/08, Pavel Krivanek <squeak1 at continentalbrno.cz> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>