Yes, they are. The first part "Copyright Person A" at least makes sense in _some_ way, but "all rights reserved" is just false given the GNU licence.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @kirstie_j and
I mention it in a different thread, but “all rights reserved” still applies. As the author, you still retain all rights even under GNU. GNU is a license for _other people_, your own rights are not impacted. (Except enforcement against individuals in compliance with GNU rules.)
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DailyPedantry @kirstie_j and
Interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @DailyPedantry and
CC
@npch. So I'm now confused, is what we said wrong then? It certainly feels weird to say all rights reserved when it's open to me. Hmm.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @DailyPedantry and
I think I interpret
@DailyPedantry’s response to say that as the copyright holder, you retain all rights, which allows both GPL and dual-licensing, and that you claim that by using the phrase “All Rights Reserved” (1/2)1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
However the use of this phrase was a convention under Buenos Aires Comvention of 1910, which became obsolete in 2000. Therefore the phrase is not necessary to assert copyright and is arguably confusing. But not wrong. (2/2)
3 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
WOAH - fun facts galore! Thank you all for the discussion!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kirstie_j @npch and
Ahhhhhhh. OK, good. And thanks to her (
@DailyPedantry) and you, Neil!1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Bonus fact! Registering a copyright is now cheaper than certified mailing it anywhere. So, “poor man’s copyright” despite always being dubious, is now more expensive than just registering.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
!