(Randal L. Schwartz) via RT wrote:
According to Brad Templeton's copyright FAQ, it really doesn't mean anything anyway. If I recall, It was needed in a few south american countries, all of whom have become Berne-convention parties now, so it really means nothing. It never meant "rights" in a licensing point of view, so while your actions are agreeable, your motivation is misplaced. :)
You've got it half right. It came from the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910, and was commonly used in South American countries. But the U.S. was also a signatory to the convention, so it was used here too.
The terms of the Buenos Aires Convention required copyright holders to state that they were reserving rights before they could get any copyright protection, hence the statement "All Rights Reserved" in copyright notices. Open source licenses are copyright licenses, so it is exactly the same "rights" as licensing rights, and we're giving some of them away, not reserving all of them.
And yes, the Buenos Aires Convention was effectively replaced by the Berne Convention of 1886, after all the parties of the Buenos Aires Convention became signatories of the Berne Convention in 2000. (Both are still in force, but since the Berne Convention has much wider adoption, it's the one that carries the most weight.) The Berne Convention grants copyright protection even if there isn't any copyright notice.
So, "All Rights Reserved" is both false and unnecessary. But, I didn't figure people really wanted to hear all that. :) Allison
