On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Dominick Samperi
djsamp...@earthlink.netwrote:
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
That said, as a matter of courtesy and clarity, I'd think that a fork
should use a different name.
Yes, the point is that this is not a legal or technical matter, it is a
matter of
In my view what has happened is not much different from a situation
where I place my
name as co-author on a research paper that you have created, without
your permission,
after making a few small edits that you may not agree with. Furthermore,
if you complain
I simply present the results (at
Good afternoon,
While I don't know the history of this particular conflict - to me the
entire *purpose* of the GPL is to ALLOW forking of code which must
remain in public. If somebody forks code and makes any change
whatsoever and then distributes either the diff or the entire previous
project,
The central purpose of the GPL license is precisely to allow and indeed
encourage the behavior your are criticizing. In particular, when you
release software under the GPL, you are *explicitly* giving recipients of
the software the right to modify it pretty much in any way (trivial or
radical)
I guess one problem is who is in charge of the name Rcpp on CRAN. For
instance, can I fork of yet another version of Rcpp (or any other
CRAN package) and submit it to CRAN? Can the original author submit a
completely different Rcpp package breaking all the additions made by
the new contributors?
One critical aspect to this is the fact that RcppTemplate seems to
have been where the Rcpp work moved to _before_ abandoning the Rcpp
project.
http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/RcppTemplate/
So the 'namespace' of Rcpp was left with seemingly no public intention
of picking it up.
I wrote the Rcpp library and the RcppTemplate package to make it
easier for developers to contribute packages to the R community.
In addition to providing detailed documentation on
package creation it provides a clean object mapping between
R anc C++ that helps developers to implement packages
I am not sure what clause of the GPL you have in mind when you say that it
explicitly states that these changes should not leave misleading impressions
about the original developer.
Are you perhaps thinking of the passage in Section 7 which says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of
I see your name and work are clearly mentioned in the DESCRIPTION file:
Rcpp: Rcpp R/C++ interface package
R/C++ interface classes and examples The Rcpp library maps data types
betweeen R and C++, and includes support for R types real, integer,
character, vector, matrix, Date, datetime (i.e.
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
That said, as a matter of courtesy and clarity, I'd think that a fork
should use a different name.
Yes, the point is that this is not a legal or technical matter, it is a
matter of professional courtesy.
I take this as one vote for the name change.
On US copyright
This is fantastically off-topic, and has nothing to do with *R*.
Out of courtesy to this list, the subscribers, and future readers,
please take this off-list where it belongs.
Jeff
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Dominick Samperi
djsamp...@earthlink.net wrote:
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
That
11 matches
Mail list logo
