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 that
benefit from the performance of C++ and the flexibility of R.
The package named 'Rcpp' was forked from my work and
is being developed independently, in spite of many protests
from me. A diff of Rcpp_0.6.6 and RcppTemplate_5.3 (written
several years ago), both available at CRAN, will show that
Rcpp added a few cut-and-paste changes. (The latest release
of Rcpp has been split up and reorganized so that it would
be difficult to find the differences now.)
More importantly, while GPL gives developers the right to
make changes (without the permission of the original
contributor) it explicitly states that these changes should
not leave misleading impressions about the original
developer.
Unfortunately, GPL does not spell out what it means to
be misleading. I think using the same name ('Rcpp')
as a library still being developed by the original author,
and listing yourself as a copyright holder on source code
alongside the original author without that person's
permission counts as misleading, but that is my
opinion.
I am posting this message seeking the opinion of others
in the R community. Perhaps by sharing ideas we can
"self-organize" and find an interpretation of GPL that
benefits all R users, and all package contributors as well.
A minimal resolution of this issue would be to simply
rename 'Rcpp' to something like 'RInside', or to something
else that is not misleading.
Thanks,
Dominick
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 this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
... c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable
ways as different from the original version; ...
This passage allows you to *supplement* the GPL with additional terms (which
you would have had to have done with the version you distributed). It does
not in itself prohibit misrepresentation.
That said, as a matter of courtesy and clarity, I'd think that a fork should
use a different name.
As for "listing yourself as a copyright holder on source code alongside the
original author without that person's permission", under US copyright
law
(at least), the author of derivative works (things based on the original
work such as translations) has every right to be named on the copyright
notice; in fact, to enforce the GPL on those supplementary sections, he may
even have to be....
-s
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Dominick Samperi
<djsamperi@earthlink.net>wrote:
> 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 that
> benefit from the performance of C++ and the flexibility of R.
>
> The package named 'Rcpp' was forked from my work and
> is being developed independently, in spite of many protests
> from me. A diff of Rcpp_0.6.6 and RcppTemplate_5.3 (written
> several years ago), both available at CRAN, will show that
> Rcpp added a few cut-and-paste changes. (The latest release
> of Rcpp has been split up and reorganized so that it would
> be difficult to find the differences now.)
>
> More importantly, while GPL gives developers the right to
> make changes (without the permission of the original
> contributor) it explicitly states that these changes should
> not leave misleading impressions about the original
> developer.
>
> Unfortunately, GPL does not spell out what it means to
> be misleading. I think using the same name ('Rcpp')
> as a library still being developed by the original author,
> and listing yourself as a copyright holder on source code
> alongside the original author without that person's
> permission counts as misleading, but that is my
> opinion.
>
> I am posting this message seeking the opinion of others
> in the R community. Perhaps by sharing ideas we can
> "self-organize" and find an interpretation of GPL that
> benefits all R users, and all package contributors as well.
>
> A minimal resolution of this issue would be to simply
> rename 'Rcpp' to something like 'RInside', or to something
> else that is not misleading.
>
> Thanks,
> Dominick
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
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. POSIXct) at microsecond resolution, data frame, and function. Transer to and from simple SEXP objects is particular easy. Calling R functions from C++ is also supported. C++ code can be 'inlined' and a helper function (from the 'inline' package) will create a C++ function and compile, link and load it which makes C++ integration easy. Several examples are included. Version: 0.7.0 Depends: R (>=2.0.0), methods Published: 2009-12-20 Author: Dirk Eddelbuettel with contributions by Simon Urbanek and David Reiss; based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi Maintainer: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> License: GPL (>=2) URL: http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/rcpp.html Besides, I followed the URL and also saw Dirk's explanation for adopting your original work (in the "History" section). And when I opened the source code files, I can see declarations like this here and there: // -*- mode: C++; c-indent-level: 4; c-basic-offset: 4; tab-width: 8 -*- // // Rcpp.h: R/C++ interface class library // // Copyright (C) 2005 - 2006 Dominick Samperi // Copyright (C) 2008 - 2009 Dirk Eddelbuettel So the impression does not seem to be misleading at least to me... Maybe I missed anything or I did not understand your problem? Regards, Yihui -- Yihui Xie <xieyihui at gmail.com> Phone: 515-294-6609 Web: http://yihui.name Department of Statistics, Iowa State University 3211 Snedecor Hall, Ames, IA On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dominick Samperi <djsamperi at earthlink.net> wrote:> 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 that > benefit from the performance of C++ and the flexibility of R. > > The package named 'Rcpp' was forked from my work and > is being developed independently, in spite of many protests > from me. A diff of Rcpp_0.6.6 and RcppTemplate_5.3 (written > several years ago), both available at CRAN, will show that > Rcpp added a few cut-and-paste changes. (The latest release > of Rcpp has been split up and reorganized so that it would > be difficult to find the differences now.) > > More importantly, while GPL gives developers the right to > make changes (without the permission of the original > contributor) it explicitly states that these changes should > not leave misleading impressions about the original > developer. > > Unfortunately, GPL does not spell out what it means to > be misleading. I think using the same name ('Rcpp') > as a library still being developed by the original author, > and listing yourself as a copyright holder on source code > alongside the original author without that person's > permission counts as misleading, but that is my > opinion. > > I am posting this message seeking the opinion of others > in the R community. Perhaps by sharing ideas we can > "self-organize" and find an interpretation of GPL that > benefits all R users, and all package contributors as well. > > A minimal resolution of this issue would be to simply > rename 'Rcpp' to something like 'RInside', or to something > else that is not misleading. > > Thanks, > Dominick > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >