Yes, I agree, Spencer. The worst thing that can happen is for your ideas/creations to go completely unnoticed.
Here is what David Hume had to say about how his first philosophical work (Treatise of Human Nature) was received: "Never literary attempt was more unfortunate than my Treatise of Human Nature. It fell dead-born from the press, without reaching such distinction as even to excite a murmur among the zealots" So, Dominick - please cheer up and try to find some solace in that your work has had an influence on the R community! Best, Ravi. ------------------------------------------------------- Ravi Varadhan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology School of Medicine Johns Hopkins University Ph. (410) 502-2619 email: rvarad...@jhmi.edu -----Original Message----- From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:22 AM To: Martyn Plummer Cc: r-devel@r-project.org; rcpp-devel Subject: Re: [Rd] GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp) On 12/2/2010 6:20 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote: > Dear Dominick, > > The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are > quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized > authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong". We > cannot, as a group, deal with anything else. > > Everybody knows that you have an acrimonious relationship with the > current developers of Rcpp (and if they don't then a cursory look at the > rcpp-devel archives will confirm this). The issue of the acknowledgment > that you are complaining about is merely a symptom of the further > deterioration of this relationship. Appeals to authority or public > opinion are not going to help you obtain satisfaction. > > Having your free software taken up and developed by other people is not > the worst thing that can happen. For a free software developer, the > worst thing that can happen is that they get run over by a proverbial > bus and their software dies with them. Somewhere close to the worst is that no one every uses your software. > Martyn > > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:21 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote: >> This post asks members of the R community, users and developers, >> to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License >> and R community policies more generally. >> >> The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original >> contributors by not disseminating misleading information about them. >> Indeed, for pragmatic reasons it effectively assumes that original authors >> have no rights regarding their GPL-ed software, and it implicitly leaves >> it up to the community of developers and users to conduct themselves in a >> fair and >> reasonable manner. >> >> After discussing these matters with Richard Stallman I think >> we more-or-less agreed that a GPL "copyright" notice is nothing >> more than a way to deputise people to serve as protectors of the >> principles of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). It has nothing to >> do with protecting the "rights" or the "ideas" of original >> contributors. There is no peer review, no requirement to >> explain your contributions, and anybody can essentially >> do as they please with the software provided they retain >> the copyright/FSF deputy notice---of course, you can >> always work-around this last restriction by modifying the >> implementation and placing it in a new file, because >> nobody is checking (GPL doesn't require it). >> >> The GPL is all about "freedom", not responsibility. It is entirely >> focused on "deregulation", not on the protection of intellectual >> property or professional reputations. It serves the useful purpose >> of making great software more widely available, but it does not >> dictate how people should behave and should not be used >> as a moral compass. (See recent book titled >> "You are not a gadget: a manifesto", a rejoinder to the >> GNU manifesto.) >> >> As a counterbalance I think the community of developers and >> users need to play a more active role in the evolution of >> shared values and expectations. In this spirit I respectfully request >> that the R community consider the following. >> >> The author line of the latest release of the R package >> Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows: >> >> From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi" >> >> To: "a small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005 and >> 2006 by Dominick Samperi" >> >> As it is highly unusual (and largely impossible) to quantify the relative >> size of the the contribution made by each author of GPL'ed software, this >> has >> effectively changed an acknowledgment into a disparaging remark. It >> is also misleading, because I am the original creator of the Rcpp library >> and package (it was forked by Dirk Eddelbuettel and is now effectively >> part of R core development). Incidentally, the README file for >> Rcpp 0.6.7 shows that my contributions and influence were not >> confined to the period 2005-2006. >> >> A look at the change history of Rcpp would quickly reveal that to be >> fair other authors of Rcpp (and perhaps other R package authors) >> should have their contributions qualified with "a small portion of the >> code", >> or "administered by", but this is precisely the kind of monitoring that >> inspired Richard Stallman to say we must "chuck the masks" in the >> GNU Manifesto. >> >> It is obviously a great benefit for the R community to have Rcpp actively >> supported by the R core team. I am very grateful for this. What I do >> have a problem with is the fact that my contributions are disparaged >> by people who have benefited from my past work. >> >> It seems to me that there are two possible resolutions. First, if my >> name is used in the Rcpp package it should be used to provide fair, >> accurate, and courteous acknowledgement for my past contributions. >> Second, if this is not possible, then my name should not be used at all. >> If the second option is selected then the only place my name should >> appear is in the copyright ("deputy") notices. >> >> Incidentally, the fact that the word "copyright" is profoundly misleading in >> the context of GPL is not a new idea, and the word "copyleft" is >> sometimes used instead. But copyleft is not used in source files >> because this would unlink GPL from the well-established legal >> framework associated with "copyright", making it more difficult for >> the FSF to enforce its principles (the critical link is provided by >> the copyright holders or "deputies"). >> >> A final clarification: authors of original works do retain a legal >> copyright on their original work in the sense that they are free >> to modify this work and release it as non-free software (or >> under a different free license), but this has no effect on the >> version that was released under GPL. The latter version and >> all of its progeny belong to the public (or to the FSF from >> a legal point of view). >> >> Please feel free to express your opinion on these matters. >> >> Thanks, >> Dominick >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > This message and its attachments are strictly confidenti...{{dropped:8}} > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > -- Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Operating Officer Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San José, CA 95126 ph: 408-655-4567 ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel