Just noticed this in the linux's kernel code main.c: *   Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds *   Copyright 2007 rPath, Inc. - All Rights Reserved *   Copyright 2009 Intel Corporation; author H. Peter AnvinHow do they apply to the kernel? It seems really strange to me, also because the next line is: *   This file is part of the Linux kernel, and is made available under *   the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2.
How can the Linux kernel's main.c file say that one of its copyrights is all rights reserved when it's GPL?
gpl;proprietary code;license notice;linux kernel
Copyright and open source are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most open-source licenses depend on copyright in order to function properly. The GPL comes most readily to mind: you couldn't enforce the requirement to share-alike if copyright didn't let the author decide who may or may not copy the work. But even something as simple as an MIT-style attribution requirement couldn't be enforced without copyright. The Creative Commons licenses also depend on copyright.Non-copyrighted software does exist (in some jurisdictions). Such software is often said to be in the public domain, and although it is usually classified alongside open-source, it works quite differently: instead of using a license to explicitly allow the sharing of software, it doesn't use a license at all. That's why Creative Commons calls CC0 a dedication instead of a license (though it includes a license for jurisdictions that do not recognize the public domain). SQLite is a famous example of public-domain software, though it does not use CC0.The All rights reserved by rPath is a bit strange to see in an open-source product, but it is probably just standard boilerplate. The GPL renders it pretty much moot anyway; the rights are reserved, but then the GPL explicitly re-grants the rights that make the software open-source.