[legal-discuss] Need for "All rights reserved" in source files ?

Daniel P. Berrange berrange at redhat.com
Tue May 27 14:20:50 UTC 2014


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:06:56AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 01:47:58PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > Is there any current legal reason why 'All rights reserved' is needed in
> > source files ? 
> 
> None that I can see.
> 
> > So I'm wondering if there is any legal reason that prevents us removing
> > the 'All rights reserved' statements from the source files in Nova, and
> > any projects who wish to do a similar cleanup ?
> 
> tl;dr IMO you should keep the 'All rights reserved' unless the nominal
> copyright holders in the associated legal notice authorize the removal.

[snip]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. The need to get authorization
from the nominal copyright holders means that it really wouldn't
be worth the effort to remove 'All rights reserved' just for the
sake of cleaning up the headers.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|



More information about the legal-discuss mailing list