<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Douglas Bates <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bates@stat.wisc.edu">bates@stat.wisc.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Against my better judgement I will try to correct a misconception. I<br>
fear that my message will only fan the flames but I also think that<br>
if we are to be subjected to long, drawn out, personal attacks on this<br>
subject then the readers of this list are entitled to facts instead of<br>
speculation.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Dominick Samperi <<a href="mailto:djsamperi@gmail.com">djsamperi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Gavin Simpson <<a href="mailto:gavin.simpson@ucl.ac.uk">gavin.simpson@ucl.ac.uk</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:21 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:<br>
>> > This post asks members of the R community, users and developers,<br>
>> > to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License<br>
>> > and R community policies more generally.<br>
>> ><br>
>> <snip/><br>
>> > As a counterbalance I think the community of developers and<br>
>> > users need to play a more active role in the evolution of<br>
>> > shared values and expectations. In this spirit I respectfully request<br>
>> > that the R community consider the following.<br>
>><br>
>> I don't think there is much relevance /here/ (R-devel) to your spat with<br>
>> the Rcpp developers. You released the package under a permissive licence<br>
>> and people took up its development after it lay dormant for a long time.<br>
>><br>
>> As I understand it Rcpp has moved on leaps and bounds of late and the<br>
>> current code base is quite well removed from your original. That being<br>
>> so, the line you quote would seem to be a fair reflection of the current<br>
>> state of the package.<br>
>><br>
>> I do not read into it anything disparaging and would suggest that it is<br>
>> your own personal displeasure at the way your work has been taken and<br>
>> improved/altered that is colouring your views on this particular point.<br>
>><br>
>> Also, I wasn't aware that Rcpp was now part of R Core Development. I was<br>
>> aware that Rcpp now uses some of the new reference class code added in<br>
>> the latest version of R. If I have missed something, great. The Rcpp<br>
>> stuff I have seen recently looks great and I see it being used in<br>
>> several packages.<br>
><br>
> Obviously members of the R core team have been added to the author<br>
> list. I think this answers your question.<br>
<br>
</div></div>What you say (members of the R core development team are listed as<br>
contributors to the current Rcpp package) is true. Your inference<br>
that Rcpp is now part of R Core Development is not. John Chambers and<br>
I are participating in the development of Rcpp as individuals, not on<br>
behalf of R Core.<br>
<br>
Making wild accusations based on misconceptions will only serve to<br>
discredit you.<br>
<br>
If I were in your position I would reflect upon the fact that you have<br>
been making strong assertions with respect to the history and future<br>
of Rcpp for many months and very few, if any, R developers have<br>
stepped forward in support of your claims.<br></blockquote><div><br>Thanks for the feedback Doug,<br><br>On the R Core involvement that sounds like a semantic point. I<br>do appreciate you contributions, however you call them.<br>
<br>I am well-aware of the fact that I am not likely to receive much <br>support from people on the rcpp-devel mailing list as this is a <br>captive audience who would not want to stop the flow. That is<br>why I have added back r-devel, and I would add r-users<br>
and r-policy as well if they existed.<br><br>Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a<br>policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this<br>thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and<br>
for no reason deprecate the contributions of past<br>authors, and as more progress is made, even more<br>disparaging remarks can be added.<br><br>While I would like to hear feedback from the larger community<br>on this matter (as it may encourage me to contribute), I<br>
probably have to accept the fact that my name will not<br>be used in the Rcpp package in a fair and unbiased way.<br><br>Thus I have offered option two: do not refer to my name<br>in the Rcpp package. In this way there will be no need<br>
to update the author line as more progress is made.<br><br>Thanks again,<br>Dominick<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
> I do not deny that great progress has been made, but that does not<br>
> give the developers the right to impugn my work. Are you saying it<br>
> is proper to deprecate the contribution of past authors, and that<br>
> the extent of this deprecation should be proportional to the amount<br>
> of progress made? Should we add this to the list of R community<br>
> policies? Are all users in agreement with this policy?<br>
><br>
> As I said, an easy resolution is simply to not refer to my<br>
> name in the Rcpp package at all.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Please grind this particular axe elsewhere.<br>
>><br>
>> All the best,<br>
>><br>
>> Gavin<br>
>><br>
>> > The author line of the latest release of the R package<br>
>> > Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi"<br>
>> ><br>
>> > To: "a small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005<br>
>> > and<br>
>> > 2006 by Dominick Samperi"<br>
>> ><br>
>> > As it is highly unusual (and largely impossible) to quantify the<br>
>> > relative<br>
>> > size of the the contribution made by each author of GPL'ed software,<br>
>> > this<br>
>> > has<br>
>> > effectively changed an acknowledgment into a disparaging remark. It<br>
>> > is also misleading, because I am the original creator of the Rcpp<br>
>> > library<br>
>> > and package (it was forked by Dirk Eddelbuettel and is now effectively<br>
>> > part of R core development). Incidentally, the README file for<br>
>> > Rcpp 0.6.7 shows that my contributions and influence were not<br>
>> > confined to the period 2005-2006.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > A look at the change history of Rcpp would quickly reveal that to be<br>
>> > fair other authors of Rcpp (and perhaps other R package authors)<br>
>> > should have their contributions qualified with "a small portion of the<br>
>> > code",<br>
>> > or "administered by", but this is precisely the kind of monitoring that<br>
>> > inspired Richard Stallman to say we must "chuck the masks" in the<br>
>> > GNU Manifesto.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > It is obviously a great benefit for the R community to have Rcpp<br>
>> > actively<br>
>> > supported by the R core team. I am very grateful for this. What I do<br>
>> > have a problem with is the fact that my contributions are disparaged<br>
>> > by people who have benefited from my past work.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > It seems to me that there are two possible resolutions. First, if my<br>
>> > name is used in the Rcpp package it should be used to provide fair,<br>
>> > accurate, and courteous acknowledgement for my past contributions.<br>
>> > Second, if this is not possible, then my name should not be used at all.<br>
>> > If the second option is selected then the only place my name should<br>
>> > appear is in the copyright ("deputy") notices.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Incidentally, the fact that the word "copyright" is profoundly<br>
>> > misleading in<br>
>> > the context of GPL is not a new idea, and the word "copyleft" is<br>
>> > sometimes used instead. But copyleft is not used in source files<br>
>> > because this would unlink GPL from the well-established legal<br>
>> > framework associated with "copyright", making it more difficult for<br>
>> > the FSF to enforce its principles (the critical link is provided by<br>
>> > the copyright holders or "deputies").<br>
>> ><br>
>> > A final clarification: authors of original works do retain a legal<br>
>> > copyright on their original work in the sense that they are free<br>
>> > to modify this work and release it as non-free software (or<br>
>> > under a different free license), but this has no effect on the<br>
>> > version that was released under GPL. The latter version and<br>
>> > all of its progeny belong to the public (or to the FSF from<br>
>> > a legal point of view).<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Please feel free to express your opinion on these matters.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Thanks,<br>
>> > Dominick<br>
>> ><br>
>> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]<br>
>> ><br>
>> > ______________________________________________<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:R-devel@r-project.org">R-devel@r-project.org</a> mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel" target="_blank">https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel</a><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%<br>
>> Dr. Gavin Simpson [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522<br>
>> ECRC, UCL Geography, [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565<br>
>> Pearson Building, [e] <a href="http://gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk" target="_blank">gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk</a><br>
>> Gower Street, London [w] <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Eucfagls/" target="_blank">http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/</a><br>
>> UK. WC1E 6BT. [w] <a href="http://www.freshwaters.org.uk" target="_blank">http://www.freshwaters.org.uk</a><br>
>> %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Rcpp-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org">Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</blockquote></div><br>