Re: New maintainer

[Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>]

Alan L Tyree <alantyree@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 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.