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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>