Thanks for the analysis.  Perhaps I can be a little more specific.  If I
were to distribute some source code under the terms of SqueakL (this
could be any software, not affiliated in any way with Squeak itself),
would (for example) section 3 (Disclaimer of Warranty) apply my
software, even though the language explicitly says "Apple Software" and
"Apple"?  I guess I am confused as to how that would apply to my
software by simply stating that the software is provided under the terms
of SqueakL.  In other words, I would like a clause that disclaims any
warranty to apply to my software, and I'm failing to see how SqueakL (as
is written) would accomplish that.

- Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 3:26 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a 
> smalltalk transaction service
> 
> 
> To the extent the answers to these questions are very 
> important to you, 
> I will need to refer you to counsel to answer them.  Few 
> legal questions 
> can be answered in the abstract, and thus, no reasonable 
> answer can be 
> given based solely on this e-mail.  The question concerning "the same 
> protections that it gives Apple" is too broadly phrased to reasonably 
> offer any advice other than, perhaps, "it depends."  I can offer no 
> legal advice here, but the following principles may be of interest to 
> you when bringing these points to the attention of counsel:
> 
> Unless a work made for hire, the author owns a copyright for each and 
> every original work of authorship they have fixed in tangible media, 
> regardless of registration or notice provisions.  Registration and 
> notice can give certain legal benefits to the party owning 
> the copyright 
> and may be appropriate, but are not necessary for ownership 
> or an action 
> for infringement to accrue.  The legal sufficiency of a 
> copyright notice 
> depends upon the work and the nature of publication, but a 
> notice should 
> include, at least, the word "Copyright", "Copr." or a 
> c-in-circle (not a 
> c-in-paren), the year of publication and the name of the copyright 
> owner.  The words "all rights reserved" has additional 
> benefits in some 
> nations.
> 
> On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 02:38 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
> 
> > If I wanted to have the same protections against liability that the 
> > SqueakL gives Apple for some goodie that I've written...is it 
> > sufficient to simply distribute the code under the SqueakL? 
>  Does that 
> > give me the same protections that it gives Apple?  Also, how do I 
> > distinguish
> > (legally) the code for which I hold the copyright from that 
> which Apple
> > (or others) holds the copyright?  Do I simply need a reasonable (and
> > legally defensable) mechanism for making that known to users of the
> > software?  Are the authors initials in methods sufficient for this
> > purpose?
> >
> > - Stephen
> >
> > -----
> > (c)2001 Stephen Pair, spair at acm.org - This email is 
> licensed for use 
> > under the terms of the Mozilla Public License
> > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.html)
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of 
> >> Andrew C. Greenberg
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:12 PM
> >> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >> Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a 
> smalltalk 
> >> transaction service
> >>
> >>
> >> As a lawyer practicing in this field, I note that if 
> representing a 
> >> defendant in such a case, this is the argument I would make. If I 
> >> were representing a plaintiff, I'd make another argument, to the
> >> extent you
> >> aren't protecting sufficiently my remarks, and then show the
> >> fact-finder
> >> a copy of your program displaying the fonts.  You would pointedly
> >> explain how the display of "other fonts" was not from your
> >> code, and so
> >> forth, but then you would have to make that argument.
> >>
> >> Now, from a practical point of view, none of that matters. 
> Assume you
> >> are representing a corporate entity and asked whether they can use
> >> Squeak for their ongoing development, including your goodie.  ANY
> >> question about the propriety and applicability of a license
> >> will lead to
> >> a negative conclusion.  At some point, the non Squeak-L 
> licensing of
> >> goodies is too remote to be worth reviewing, and will just
> >> get dinged as
> >> soon as the issue is raised.
> >>
> >> I strongly recommend against lawyering your own licenses -- 
> >> particularly in this scenario.  I would keep the license 
> as-is, until
> >> Squeak itself
> >> modifies the overall license.  Failure to do so will 
> likely result in
> >> having the derivative work marginalized and/or ignored.  
> It will also
> >> make it a legally difficult challenge for incorporation of
> >> the goodie in
> >> the image or distribution of the goodie with Squeak, whether
> >> or not part
> >> of the image.
> >>
> >> On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 12:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative
> >> licenses
> >>> so
> >>> long
> >>> as they are no less protective of Apple's rights.  More to
> >> the point,
> >>> since
> >>> a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it 
> >>> should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font 
> issues in 
> >>> the GOODIE license.
> >>> If you wish to be particularly paranoid, you can add a
> >> reference stating
> >>> that the goodie is intended for use in the Squeak
> >> environment, which is
> >>> in
> >>> turn covered by the Squeak license.
> >>>
> >>> 	--- Noel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
>