Jambunathan K writes: > Alan L Tyree <alanty...@gmail.com> 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:172...@iptel.org