Subject: Re: For Approval: The Simplified BSD License
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:43:21 -0700

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu):

["All Rights Reserved"]

> As Smørgrav said, they did need to do so, and still might in some
> jursidictions.  It doesn't effect OSD-compliance; the still license
> grants the rights needed.

Quite right.  This should have been apparent from simple logic:  The
licence explicitly conveys the rights necessary to be open source /
free-software, overcoming the default reservation of those rights that
would otherwise result from copyright statutes.  The phrase "All Rights
Reserved" alongside that is thus quite irrelevant, as it does not and
cannot alter that explicit grant -- nor purport to, if you bother to
understand the historical context and meaning of that phrase.

> IANAL, but I think that's incorrect.  It was/is required to state "all
> rights reserved", then grant any license.

This is my understanding, as well.

It doesn't matter that literal-minded computerists think they see
conflicts between the two.  What matters is that judges (and people with
at least a passing acquaintance with the traditions of copyright law 
will read the situation as intended.