www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jennifer O'Neill" <jennifer...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: "All rights reserved"
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:40:29 GMT
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
software.

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”):
> http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/allrightsreserved/
>
> 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:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/derby-dev@db.apache.org/msg00510.html
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 7:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message