Return-Path: 
 <legal-discuss-return-5608-apmail-legal-discuss-archive=apache.org@apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 61232 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2010 23:32:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2010 23:32:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 97601 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2010 23:32:37 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org
Received: (qmail 97404 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2010 23:32:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
List-Id: <legal-discuss.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org
Received: (qmail 97397 invoked by uid 99); 28 Mar 2010 23:32:36 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:32:36 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of hyandell@gmail.com designates
 209.85.221.172 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.221.172] (HELO mail-qy0-f172.google.com)
 (209.85.221.172)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:32:28 +0000
Received: by qyk2 with SMTP id 2so133783qyk.13
        for <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:received:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=k9VKorLzK0X0pP94NLOtpc7dlCkIc7Z5lghT8CfvjPU=;
        b=DfzQvAAq12ZEd91xMAdZZ2y9on88rE89xUdywwpHbXvMRewYD61shrCudbmGGSul02
         UbvbCceabi3awjAu3MUCHrdEWXISwwnbW9/HLTzLkrEDAl/2s9da30SKz59h2J7NzmJO
         8O4EU1553/j1a3RggRraSQ5YIeRl8D+3ZDdJ8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject
         :from:to:content-type;
        b=T/D0gixztfAQnbLFxnXv0Indx7fvwBZllE1XAu6uispCjiGM22hWPmlMHRrlN0D5zc
         fe/vpGz0KpVtbUGszZn9hBoB8ymw2cvdDui+uy6rhXkFTs63zPK0VPb8CIAmPUHrzrHw
         B2QdsEEt6iC9UOafSllo8cLnYrXt05jfnMLW4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hyandell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.212.134 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:32:07 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 09b3efbb2030bf6f
Received: by 10.229.218.204 with SMTP id hr12mr223623qcb.101.1269819127829;
	Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2d12b2f01003281632t1bec83ddre3e9028a84a3c974@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: "All rights reserved"
From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
To: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

It's common to see:

*****
Copyright <Year> <Blah>. All Rights Reserved.

<Licensing of rights to recipient of package>
******


When including the copyright header in a NOTICE file, what thoughts
are there on whether we should include the "All Rights Reserved"
statement? It seems misleading/confusing to be saying that and putting
the license in LICENSE.

If we have a license to redistribute something - the rights aren't
reserved. Can we delete it as a piece of bad text?

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org