<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Spencer Graves <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spencer.graves@structuremonitoring.com">spencer.graves@structuremonitoring.com</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;">
<div class="im">On 12/2/2010 6:20 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Dear Dominick,<br>
<br>
The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are<br>
quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized<br>
authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong". We<br>
cannot, as a group, deal with anything else.<br>
<br>
Everybody knows that you have an acrimonious relationship with the<br>
current developers of Rcpp (and if they don't then a cursory look at the<br>
rcpp-devel archives will confirm this). The issue of the acknowledgment<br>
that you are complaining about is merely a symptom of the further<br>
deterioration of this relationship. Appeals to authority or public<br>
opinion are not going to help you obtain satisfaction.<br>
<br>
Having your free software taken up and developed by other people is not<br>
the worst thing that can happen. For a free software developer, the<br>
worst thing that can happen is that they get run over by a proverbial<br>
bus and their software dies with them.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Somewhere close to the worst is that no one every uses your software.<br></blockquote><div><br>Worst yet is having to compete with your own work.<br><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;">
<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">
Martyn<br>
<br>
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:21 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
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>
The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original<br>
contributors by not disseminating misleading information about them.<br>
Indeed, for pragmatic reasons it effectively assumes that original authors<br>
have no rights regarding their GPL-ed software, and it implicitly leaves<br>
it up to the community of developers and users to conduct themselves in a<br>
fair and<br>
reasonable manner.<br>
<br>
After discussing these matters with Richard Stallman I think<br>
we more-or-less agreed that a GPL "copyright" notice is nothing<br>
more than a way to deputise people to serve as protectors of the<br>
principles of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). It has nothing to<br>
do with protecting the "rights" or the "ideas" of original<br>
contributors. There is no peer review, no requirement to<br>
explain your contributions, and anybody can essentially<br>
do as they please with the software provided they retain<br>
the copyright/FSF deputy notice---of course, you can<br>
always work-around this last restriction by modifying the<br>
implementation and placing it in a new file, because<br>
nobody is checking (GPL doesn't require it).<br>
<br>
The GPL is all about "freedom", not responsibility. It is entirely<br>
focused on "deregulation", not on the protection of intellectual<br>
property or professional reputations. It serves the useful purpose<br>
of making great software more widely available, but it does not<br>
dictate how people should behave and should not be used<br>
as a moral compass. (See recent book titled<br>
"You are not a gadget: a manifesto", a rejoinder to the<br>
GNU manifesto.)<br>
<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>
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 and<br>
2006 by Dominick Samperi"<br>
<br>
As it is highly unusual (and largely impossible) to quantify the relative<br>
size of the the contribution made by each author of GPL'ed software, 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 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 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 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" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------<br></div></div>
This message and its attachments are strictly confidenti...{{dropped:8}}<div class="im"><br>
<br>
______________________________________________<br>
<a href="mailto:R-devel@r-project.org" target="_blank">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>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br><div><div></div><div class="h5">
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD<br>
President and Chief Operating Officer<br>
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.<br>
751 Emerson Ct.<br>
San José, CA 95126<br>
ph: 408-655-4567<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>