>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:30 PM Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: [..] >> By the way, this issue also exists on the other projects Bob has >> released on GitHub. For example, this file in DPMIONE also has the >> "All rights reserved" comment: >> https://github.com/sudleyplace/DPMIONE/blob/master/GXT_COM.INC >> >> ..but the License file says this is GNU GPL v3: >> https://github.com/sudleyplace/DPMIONE/blob/master/LICENSE >> [..]
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 6:21 PM Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > IANAL but I am seeing references where Copyright Notice is dubiously > referred to as being extraneous (since it is automatic at time of > creation) and "All rights reserved" is touted as having no legal > effect anymore. If it is true, TIL. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00252.html > https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2121/mit-license-and-all-rights-reserved > https://kbroman.org/pkg_primer/pages/licenses.html I agree with the "copyright statement being extraneous" claim. As the debian list message points out, the Berne Convention means you don't need to claim copyright on something. You have copyright at the moment you create it. (This has been the case in the US for a long time too.) And that lines up with what I said in my original reply on this thread. I disagree with the "All rights reserved has no legal effect" statement. I think it can cause problems, especially if the source code does not also indicate an open source license (for example, 386MAX's code comment has "All rights reserved" but no mention of an open source license). IMO, if you say "All rights reserved" and don't mention an open source license, then by default you're reserving *all* rights, including the right to distribute and copy. With "All rights reserved," the right to distribute and copy does not automatically pass on to the person who accesses the source code. And that's not very "open source." If you have "All rights reserved" *and* an open source statement next to it in the code comments (as mentioned in the stackexchange answer you linked to) that's less confusing, because the open source license explicitly gives certain "open source" rights to those who access the source code. But I think it's still confusing and we should avoid that. Jim (IANAL) _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
