Re: [Rd] Rcpp: Clarifying the meaning of GPL?

From: Dominick Samperi <>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:05:58 -0500

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 conferences) as my own without mentioning your name.

Is this just a dispute between implementers?

Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Dominick Samperi
> < <>> wrote:
> 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.
> The naming and maintenance history of this package (or these packages:
> Rcpp and RcppTemplate) appears to be complicated, and I have no
> interest in becoming an arbitrator or voter in what is a dispute
> between you and other implementers.
> On US copyright law, this should not be confused with "copyright"
> notices that appear in GPL
> source code. Remember that these are really "copyleft" notices,
> and copyleft is designed to
> protect the rights of copiers, not original contributors.
> The copyright notice is a correct and legally valid copyright notice.
> The GPL (copyleft) is the copyright *license*. Like all licenses, it
> defines the relationship between authors and copiers. The GPL
> explicitly avoided the so-called "obnoxious BSD advertising clause",
> which has requirements about giving credit.
> -s
> mailing list Received on Wed 23 Dec 2009 - 16:09:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed 23 Dec 2009 - 21:31:13 GMT