autofs copyright by Transmeta 'all rights reserved' ??

autofs copyright by Transmeta 'all rights reserved' ??

Post by Kurt Fitzn » Sat, 20 Dec 1997 04:00:00



I was going through the source for autofs in the new 2.0.33 kernel and
noticed that it was copyight by Transmeta (which was interesting in and
of itself) corporation with 'All rights reserved'.  The statement then
goes on to say it is placed under GPL.

I was wondering... what exactly does 'all rights reserved' mean in this
context?  The GPL is quite specific about what rights the rest of the
world has WRT a piece of code.  Are there other rights not mentioned, or
is this a statment that the code is released under GPL, but that the GPL
'rights' are reserved, or able to be revoked?

Grepping through the source code found me X .c files with the phrase
'All rights reserved'.  Some had other statements along with it that
were more or less restrictive than GPL.  One was:

  Copyright 1996 The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford
  Junior University. All Rights Reserved.

  Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
  software and its documentation for any purpose and without
  fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright
  notice appear in all copies.  Stanford University
  makes no representations about the suitability of this
  software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is" without
  express or implied warranty.

Which essentially states that with the exception of the requirement of a
copyright notice needing to appear, essentially no rights are reserved.

If someone could explain this, I would be appreciative.

 
 
 

autofs copyright by Transmeta 'all rights reserved' ??

Post by Jay T » Sat, 20 Dec 1997 04:00:00



> I was going through the source for autofs in the new 2.0.33 kernel and
> noticed that it was copyight by Transmeta (which was interesting in and
> of itself) corporation with 'All rights reserved'.  The statement then
> goes on to say it is placed under GPL.

First of all, I am anything but an expert on the subject of copyright
law.  End of disclaimer. ;-)

Some years ago, I was trying to learn as much as my legally-challenged
mind could concerning the topic of copyrights.  I found out that the
"All rights reserved" statement was included to maintain the copyright
in some countries (e.g., countries in South America) where the shorter
form, "Copyright <year> <name>" would not be enough to keep all rights.
I'll attempt to explain this: In the U.S., a notice such as "Copyright
1970 Joe American" used to be sufficient to maintain all rights.  That
is, if you held the copyright, and did not give away rights, you kept
them by default.  But in other countries, simply holding the copyright
was not enough, you had to tell people that you were *not* giving away
any rights, thus, "All rights reserved.")

Quote:> I was wondering... what exactly does 'all rights reserved' mean
> in this context?

If the GPL is included along with that statement, then it may not mean
very much. ;-)  The two would seem to contradict each other a little ...
"I'm holding onto *everything* and giving you *this*."

Since Linux is a patchwork of code from many sources, I guess this kind
of thing is bound to happen.  It's easier to get programmers to agree on
technical issues than legal ones. :-)

- Jay Ts

--
Click on http://www.kachina.net/~jay to find out about
Linux/Unix Consulting, Web Design and Programming services.

To be o' not t'be, dat be de bottom line.  What it is, Mama!
        - output of 'fortune | jive'

 
 
 

1. GPL and Copyright Holder/Programmer's Rights to Revoke

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate

I think this about sums it up so we can put this POS debate to rest.

The GPL grants the copyright holder exclusive property rights
that allows him/her to redistribute the code under any other license he
wishes, even if it's the same unmodified code, it appears.

The copyright holder may not grant exclusiveness of the GPL'd code or program to
another party, however, which is fine.  The solution is to just change
the license.

The FAQ is apparently very clear on this issue.

The GPL does not restrict the copyright holder from providing seperate
copies of the code under different licenses.

2. Slackware ftp problem

3. Novell's copyright issues are 'not important', says SCO ZDNET.co.uk

4. Fedora 2 and Netatalk

5. What's autofs' equiv. of ``mount /homexx hostxx:/homexx''?

6. immediate write to disk

7. 'w' & 'who' doesnt display the right thing!

8. Help: "attemp to access beyond end of device"

9. reserve quote character '\'

10. If open-source software is so much cooler, why isn't Transmeta getting it?

11. returning strings, I nee 'Pointing' in the right direction.

12. Smail doesn't really work... it's a joke right?

13. I can't use windows, and that's all right