www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: "All rights reserved"
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:47:21 GMT


Which countries that are not party to the Bern Convention/Buenos Aires
Convention are you worried about?






From: Jennifer O'Neill [mailto:jennifer626@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:40 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: "All rights reserved"


No data points have changed since this was last discussed in 2005.  The
meaning does not have significance for members of the Berne
Convention/Buenos Aires Convention, but it does in countries who are not
party.  Thus, the continued use of the phrase by worldwide distributors of

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

Hi McCoy,


Glad to see you still lurking here! :-)  


I completely agree with the article: "All rights reserved" has no legal
significance anymore.


Best regards, /Larry




From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.smith@intel.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:11 AM 

To: legal-discuss@apache.org

Subject: RE: "All rights reserved" 


Here is an article on this phrase (by a European lawyer who often writes on
open source legal issues);  it is pretty much sursplusage (aka "chaff"):

I'm sure Larry Rosen might have thoughts on this.



From: Jennifer O'Neill [mailto:jennifer626@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 5:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: "All rights reserved"


I thought this issue rang a bell:

Bill is right that a copyright owner that has granted a license to use its
IP still reserves the rights inherent in ownership, as compared against a
party that has assigned its intellectual property rights in their entirety
to someone else.  The phrase "all rights reserved" represents that concept,
without changing those license rights.  As noted previously, it's generally
not necessary to repeat this phrase in the U.S. and most of North America
and South America, but it still has legal meaning in other countries.  Any
owners making worldwide distribution of their works are better off retaining
it, for the avoidance of doubt.






On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 7:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@apache.org>

On 3/28/2010 6:32 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 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?

Yes they are reserved.

The LICENSE offers specific rights, under specific terms.

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



View raw message