On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 17:24 +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Your message dated Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:22:23 +0100 > with message-id <20080112172222.GA18034@volta.aurel32.net> > and subject line bogus "all rights reserved" message > has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. > > This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. > If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the > Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. > > (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am > talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration > somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) > > Debian bug tracking system administrator > (administrator, Debian Bugs database) > > email message attachment > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> > > To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org> > > Subject: bogus "all rights reserved" message > > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:49:59 +0200 > > > > Package: kfreebsd-5 > > Severity: normal > > > > The following lines are printed by kFreeBSD when boot starts: > > > > "Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. > > Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 > > The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved." > > > > I think there two problems with that: > > > > - "All rights reserved" would imply that the software is not licensed at all, > > which isn't true. The answers I got from #debian-devel indicate it's > > perfectly legal to remove this message for clarification. > > > > - These lines were added to advertise BSD 4.4 and FreeBSD, but our system > > is much different, and contains code copyrighted by a lot other contributors > > (FSF, SPI, X, etc). In this context, I think advertising UCB doesn't make > > any sense. As for FreeBSD, I'm not so sure. Perhaps we should keep it, but > > still indicate that this copyright doesn't refer to the whole system as it > > did on FreeBSD. > > > > -- System Information: > > Debian Release: testing/unstable > > Architecture: kfreebsd-i386 (i686) > > Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash > > Kernel: GNU/kFreeBSD 5.4-1-686 > > Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) > > > email message attachment > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> > > To: 335898-done@bugs.debian.org > > Subject: Re: bogus "all rights reserved" message > > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:22:23 +0100 > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > Package: kfreebsd-5 > > > Severity: normal > > > > > > The following lines are printed by kFreeBSD when boot starts: > > > > > > "Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. > > > Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 > > > The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved." > > > > > > I think there two problems with that: > > > > > > - "All rights reserved" would imply that the software is not licensed at all, > > > which isn't true. The answers I got from #debian-devel indicate it's > > > perfectly legal to remove this message for clarification. > > > > > > - These lines were added to advertise BSD 4.4 and FreeBSD, but our system > > > is much different, and contains code copyrighted by a lot other contributors > > > (FSF, SPI, X, etc). In this context, I think advertising UCB doesn't make > > > any sense. As for FreeBSD, I'm not so sure. Perhaps we should keep it, but > > > still indicate that this copyright doesn't refer to the whole system as it > > > did on FreeBSD. > > > > > > > This is a bogus bug report. While we can remove those line from the boot > > log, I see no reason of doing that. The kernel is published under this > > license, so that's ok to print this message, just as the Linux kernel > > does for some modules. > > "All Rights Reserved" is an important legal phrase wrt the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910 for countries respecting copyrights of other countries - a statement indicating that copyright not only existed but that the holder intended to defend it. Unlike the Berne Convention, which extended authorship rights with the creation of a work, the Buenos Aires convention required more active registration and defense, otherwise things became public domain. The US was late to join the Berne Convention, only some 19 years ago, so to ensure protection until that time, "All Rights Reserved" was an effective requirement of any copyright expression for both domestic and international honouring of copyrights (as well as for foreign copyrights to be recognised in the US up until the arrival of the American adoption of the Berne Convention.) All signatores of the Buenos Aires Convention are now also members of the Berne Convention, making the proclamation legally unnecessary in most current contexts, but sometimes having it around reminds people of the actual legal situation that applies. Exercise, for instance, of moral rights of copyright can be sometimes better respected in the US with the phrase. A lot of the attitude you hear of "if it is on the Internet, it must be public domain" comes from familiarity with the pre-Berne copyright situation in the US, where the absence of a clear declaration and active defence of copyright leaves people used to the older American rules assuming that they still apply. -- Mark L. Kahnt Snail: 335 Division St, Apt 5, Kingston ON K7K 4A2 Email: kahnt@hmlkahnt.ca Phone: (613) 539-0935 Home: (613) 531-8684
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part