Re: [O] New maintainer

[Alan L Tyree]

Jambunathan K writes:

> Alan L Tyree <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Of course, I know that you will think that I am confused.
>
> You are not only confused. You are in hurry and in grave error.

I thought so. Thanks so much for clearing this up for me.

>
> I am quoting an extract of Bastien's words,
>
>         the copyright assignment process would undermine the whole
>         purpose of the GPL license
>
> It is wrong to say copyright assigment will undermine the purpose of GPL
> license.  Copyright assignment is there to bolster the enforcement of
> GPL.  I provided a reference.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My claim is that there is no assignment.  Because out of my own
> initiative I informed FSF that "this work is not covered by contract"
> and also cancelled the assignment.
>
> How do you interpret the following block extracted from my assignment
>
>     ,----
>     | 2. Developer will report occasionally, on Developer’s initiative
>     | and whenever requested by FSF, the changes and/ or enhancements
>     | which are covered by this contract, and (to the extent known to
>     | Developer) any outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of any
>     | person, that might be adverse to the rights of Developer or FSF
>     | or to the purpose of this contract.
>     `----
>
> FSF clearly side-steps the important question - when is a work actually
> assigned.  Assignment is not a process but an event tied to specific
> time and date.
>
> Will you disagree if I claim - "The intent to act is not the act
> itself".  Replacement act with <whatever>.
>
> Jambunathan K.


-- 
Alan L Tyree           http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206     sip:address@hidden