If this document is authentic, it provides more proof that neither this document nor the first are copyright assignments. If the alleged 1978 document was an assignment of all Osho’s present and future copyrights, as OIF now claims, then Osho would have nothing to assign to RFI in 1981. If Osho signed this document in 1981, signing it indicated that He believed He still owned copyrights to license. It also indicated that He had ended the publishing license with RF sometime between 1978 and 1981, so that He was now free to license to another foundation.
No list of titles from Osho accompanied this document when it was filed with the US Library of Congress, so we have no way of knowing what, if any, titles were supposedly included in this new license to RFI. Because RFI filed this document with the US Library of Congress as an alleged attachment to Document 3 , and because Document 3 claimed to transfer only rights gained under Document 1 (at most eight titles), this is most likely an admission by RFI that Document 2 transferred publishing rights in only eight titles. This would mean that even if both Documents 1 & 2 were found to be authentic, they could concern, at most, the eight titles listed by Sheela for Document 1.