R devel - Dec 2010 - GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)

This post asks members of the R community, users and developers,
to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License
and R community policies more generally.

The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original
contributors by not disseminating  misleading information about them.
Indeed, for pragmatic reasons it effectively assumes that original authors
have no rights regarding their GPL-ed software, and it implicitly leaves
it up to the community of developers and users to conduct themselves in a
fair and
reasonable manner.

After discussing these matters with Richard Stallman I think
we more-or-less agreed that a GPL "copyright" notice is nothing
more than a way to deputise people to serve as protectors of the
principles of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). It has nothing to
do with protecting the "rights" or the "ideas" of original
contributors. There is no peer review, no requirement to
explain your contributions, and anybody can essentially
do as they please with the software provided they retain
the copyright/FSF deputy notice---of course, you can
always work-around this last restriction by modifying the
implementation and placing it in a new file, because
nobody is checking (GPL doesn't require it).

The GPL is all about "freedom", not responsibility. It is entirely
focused on "deregulation", not on the protection of intellectual
property or professional reputations. It serves the useful purpose
of making great software more widely available, but it does not
dictate how people should behave and should not be used
as a moral compass.  (See recent book titled
"You are not a gadget: a manifesto", a rejoinder to the
GNU manifesto.)

As a counterbalance I think the community of developers and
users need to play a more active role in the evolution of
shared values and expectations. In this spirit I respectfully request
that the R community consider the following.

The author line of the latest release of the R package
Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:

From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi"

To: "a small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005 and
2006 by Dominick Samperi"

As it is highly unusual (and largely impossible) to quantify the relative
size of the the contribution made by each author of GPL'ed software, this
has
effectively changed an acknowledgment into a disparaging remark. It
is also misleading, because I am the original creator of the Rcpp library
and package (it was forked by Dirk Eddelbuettel and is now effectively
part of R core development). Incidentally, the README file for
Rcpp 0.6.7 shows that my contributions and influence were not
confined to the period 2005-2006.

A look at the change history of Rcpp would quickly reveal that to be
fair other authors of Rcpp (and perhaps other R package authors)
should have their contributions qualified with "a small portion of the
code",
or "administered by", but this is precisely the kind of monitoring
that
inspired Richard Stallman to say we must "chuck the masks" in the
GNU Manifesto.

It is obviously a great benefit for the R community to have Rcpp actively
supported by the R core team. I am very grateful for this. What I do
have a problem with is the fact that my contributions are disparaged
by people who have benefited from my past work.

It seems to me that there are two possible resolutions. First, if my
name is used in the Rcpp package it should be used to provide fair,
accurate, and courteous acknowledgement for my past contributions.
Second, if this is not possible, then my name should not be used at all.
If the second option is selected then the only place my name should
appear is in the copyright ("deputy") notices.

Incidentally, the fact that the word "copyright" is profoundly
misleading in
the context of GPL is not a new idea, and the word "copyleft" is
sometimes used instead. But copyleft is not used in source files
because this would unlink GPL from the well-established legal
framework associated with "copyright", making it more difficult for
the FSF to enforce its principles (the critical link is provided by
the copyright holders or "deputies").

A final clarification: authors of original works do retain a legal
copyright on  their original work in the sense that they are free
to modify this work and release it as non-free software (or
under a different free license), but this has no effect on the
version that was released under GPL. The latter version and
all of its progeny belong to the public (or to the FSF from
a legal point of view).

Please feel free to express your opinion on these matters.

Thanks,
Dominick

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Douglas Bates <bates@stat.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Against my better judgement I will try to correct a misconception.  I
> fear that my message will only fan the flames but  I also think that
> if we are to be subjected to long, drawn out, personal attacks on this
> subject then the readers of this list are entitled to facts instead of
> speculation.
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Dominick Samperi
<djsamperi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Gavin Simpson
<gavin.simpson@ucl.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:21 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> >> > This post asks members of the R community, users and
developers,
> >> > to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License
> >> > and R community policies more generally.
> >> >
> >> <snip/>
> >> > As a counterbalance I think the community of developers and
> >> > users need to play a more active role in the evolution of
> >> > shared values and expectations. In this spirit I respectfully
request
> >> > that the R community consider the following.
> >>
> >> I don't think there is much relevance /here/ (R-devel) to your
spat with
> >> the Rcpp developers. You released the package under a permissive
licence
> >> and people took up its development after it lay dormant for a long
time.
> >>
> >> As I understand it Rcpp has moved on leaps and bounds of late and
the
> >> current code base is quite well removed from your original. That
being
> >> so, the line you quote would seem to be a fair reflection of the
current
> >> state of the package.
> >>
> >> I do not read into it anything disparaging and would suggest that
it is
> >> your own personal displeasure at the way your work has been taken
and
> >> improved/altered that is colouring your views on this particular
point.
> >>
> >> Also, I wasn't aware that Rcpp was now part of R Core
Development. I was
> >> aware that Rcpp now uses some of the new reference class code
added in
> >> the latest version of R. If I have missed something, great. The
Rcpp
> >> stuff I have seen recently looks great and I see it being used in
> >> several packages.
> >
> > Obviously members of the R core team have been added to the author
> > list. I think this answers your question.
>
> What you say (members of the R core development team are listed as
> contributors to the current Rcpp package) is true.  Your inference
> that Rcpp is now part of R Core Development is not.  John Chambers and
> I are participating in the development of Rcpp as individuals, not on
> behalf of R Core.
>
> Making wild accusations based on misconceptions will only serve to
> discredit you.
>
> If I were in your position I would reflect upon the fact that you have
> been making strong assertions with respect to the history and future
> of Rcpp for many months and very few, if any, R developers have
> stepped forward in support of your claims.
>
Thanks for the feedback Doug,

On the R Core involvement that sounds like a semantic point. I
do appreciate you contributions, however you call them.

I am well-aware of the fact that I am not likely to receive much
support from people on the rcpp-devel mailing list as this is a
captive audience who would not want to stop the flow. That is
why I have added back r-devel, and I would add r-users
and r-policy as well if they existed.

Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
authors, and as more progress is made, even more
disparaging remarks can be added.

While I would like to hear feedback from the larger community
on this matter (as it may encourage me to contribute), I
probably have to accept the fact that my name will not
be used in the Rcpp package in a fair and unbiased way.

Thus I have offered option two: do not refer to my name
in the Rcpp package. In this way there will be no need
to update the author line as more progress is made.

Thanks again,
Dominick

> > I do not deny that great progress has been made, but that does not
> > give the developers the right to impugn my work. Are you saying it
> > is proper to deprecate the contribution of past authors, and that
> > the extent of this deprecation should be proportional to the amount
> > of progress made? Should we add this to the list of R community
> > policies? Are all users in agreement with this policy?
> >
> > As I said, an easy resolution is simply to not refer to my
> > name in the Rcpp package at all.
> >
> >>
> >> Please grind this particular axe elsewhere.
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >>
> >> Gavin
> >>
> >> > The author line of the latest release of the R package
> >> > Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
> >> >
> >> > From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by
Dominick Samperi"
> >> >
> >> > To: "a small portion of the code is based on code
written during 2005
> >> > and
> >> > 2006 by Dominick Samperi"
> >> >
> >> > As it is highly unusual (and largely impossible) to quantify
the
> >> > relative
> >> > size of the the contribution made by each author of
GPL'ed software,
> >> > this
> >> > has
> >> > effectively changed an acknowledgment into a disparaging
remark. It
> >> > is also misleading, because I am the original creator of the
Rcpp
> >> > library
> >> > and package (it was forked by Dirk Eddelbuettel and is now
effectively
> >> > part of R core development). Incidentally, the README file
for
> >> > Rcpp 0.6.7 shows that my contributions and influence were not
> >> > confined to the period 2005-2006.
> >> >
> >> > A look at the change history of Rcpp would quickly reveal
that to be
> >> > fair other authors of Rcpp (and perhaps other R package
authors)
> >> > should have their contributions qualified with "a small
portion of the
> >> > code",
> >> > or "administered by", but this is precisely the
kind of monitoring
> that
> >> > inspired Richard Stallman to say we must "chuck the
masks" in the
> >> > GNU Manifesto.
> >> >
> >> > It is obviously a great benefit for the R community to have
Rcpp
> >> > actively
> >> > supported by the R core team. I am very grateful for this.
What I do
> >> > have a problem with is the fact that my contributions are
disparaged
> >> > by people who have benefited from my past work.
> >> >
> >> > It seems to me that there are two possible resolutions.
First, if my
> >> > name is used in the Rcpp package it should be used to provide
fair,
> >> > accurate, and courteous acknowledgement for my past
contributions.
> >> > Second, if this is not possible, then my name should not be
used at
> all.
> >> > If the second option is selected then the only place my name
should
> >> > appear is in the copyright ("deputy") notices.
> >> >
> >> > Incidentally, the fact that the word "copyright" is
profoundly
> >> > misleading in
> >> > the context of GPL is not a new idea, and the word
"copyleft" is
> >> > sometimes used instead. But copyleft is not used in source
files
> >> > because this would unlink GPL from the well-established legal
> >> > framework associated with "copyright", making it
more difficult for
> >> > the FSF to enforce its principles (the critical link is
provided by
> >> > the copyright holders or "deputies").
> >> >
> >> > A final clarification: authors of original works do retain a
legal
> >> > copyright on  their original work in the sense that they are
free
> >> > to modify this work and release it as non-free software (or
> >> > under a different free license), but this has no effect on
the
> >> > version that was released under GPL. The latter version and
> >> > all of its progeny belong to the public (or to the FSF from
> >> > a legal point of view).
> >> >
> >> > Please feel free to express your opinion on these matters.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Dominick
> >> >
> >> >       [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >> >
> >> > ______________________________________________
> >> > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >>
> >> --
> >>
%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%
> >>  Dr. Gavin Simpson             [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522
> >>  ECRC, UCL Geography,          [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565
> >>  Pearson Building,             [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk
> >>  Gower Street, London          [w]
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Eucfagls/>
> >>  UK. WC1E 6BT.                 [w] http://www.freshwaters.org.uk
> >>
%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rcpp-devel mailing list
> > Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org
> >
https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
> >
> >
>
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
> for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
> authors, and as more progress is made, even more
> disparaging remarks can be added.
What is disparaging about saying "a small portion of the code is based
on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi"? I read this
as a factual statement saying that the current version of Rcpp is
based on, in a small way, your earlier work.

For reference, a disparaging comment would be something like: "This
package was based code written by Hadley Wickham that made my eyes
bleed", or "The development of this package was driven by the godawful
code that Hadley wrote".

Hadley

-- 
Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair
Department of Statistics / Rice University
http://had.co.nz/

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham <hadley at rice.edu>
wrote:
>> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
>> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
>> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
>> for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
>> authors, and as more progress is made, even more
>> disparaging remarks can be added.
>
> What is disparaging about saying "a small portion of the code is based
> on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi"? I read this
> as a factual statement saying that the current version of Rcpp is
> based on, in a small way, your earlier work.
>
> For reference, a disparaging comment would be something like: "This
> package was based code written by Hadley Wickham that made my eyes
> bleed", or "The development of this package was driven by the
godawful
> code that Hadley wrote".
>

Its very difficult to truly assess relative contributions when you mix
in design, coding, level of effort, promotion, etc.   I would not
focus on the single word "disparaging".  I think the poster simply
used the wrong word and perhaps what he meant was more along the lines
of: as the creator of the package he presumably set the design (or
significant elements of the design) for all subsequent work and in
that respect even if its true that the number of lines he generated is
relatively small compared to the current package, that phrase gives
the misleading impression that his contribution was also small.  There
is a difference between something that is true and non-misleading and
something that is true and misleading.

-- 
Statistics & Software Consulting
GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc.
tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP
email: ggrothendieck at gmail.com

Dominick,

I don't use the Rcpp package but I have been aware of the changes made to 
the package over the years.

I don't see what you are after.  I don't consider the mention about 
your contribution in the authors section disparaging in ANY way.  It seems 
reasonable that as the code base grows, your initial contribution to have 
a smaller and smaller share.  That's all it says.  If you would start 
contributing again to the package development, I'm sure that line can be 
changed.  Romain has gone from 0% to a sizeable share in a quick period 
with some great contributions.  Other authors seem to find a way to 
contribute to the project too.

If it's peer recognition you're after, everybody on this list is already
aware that you're the original developer of the package.  I personally 
still have a good memory so I don't need another reminder email on this 
topic.

I'm sure there are other projects that you can work on, alone or with 
collaborators, that would benefit the R community.

Cheers, 
Adrian




On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> This post asks members of the R community, users and developers,
> to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License
> and R community policies more generally.
>
> The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original
> contributors by not disseminating  misleading information about them.
> Indeed, for pragmatic reasons it effectively assumes that original authors
> have no rights regarding their GPL-ed software, and it implicitly leaves
> it up to the community of developers and users to conduct themselves in a
> fair and
> reasonable manner.
>
> After discussing these matters with Richard Stallman I think
> we more-or-less agreed that a GPL "copyright" notice is nothing
> more than a way to deputise people to serve as protectors of the
> principles of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). It has nothing to
> do with protecting the "rights" or the "ideas" of
original
> contributors. There is no peer review, no requirement to
> explain your contributions, and anybody can essentially
> do as they please with the software provided they retain
> the copyright/FSF deputy notice---of course, you can
> always work-around this last restriction by modifying the
> implementation and placing it in a new file, because
> nobody is checking (GPL doesn't require it).
>
> The GPL is all about "freedom", not responsibility. It is
entirely
> focused on "deregulation", not on the protection of intellectual
> property or professional reputations. It serves the useful purpose
> of making great software more widely available, but it does not
> dictate how people should behave and should not be used
> as a moral compass.  (See recent book titled
> "You are not a gadget: a manifesto", a rejoinder to the
> GNU manifesto.)
>
> As a counterbalance I think the community of developers and
> users need to play a more active role in the evolution of
> shared values and expectations. In this spirit I respectfully request
> that the R community consider the following.
>
> The author line of the latest release of the R package
> Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
>
> From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick
Samperi"
>
> To: "a small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005
and
> 2006 by Dominick Samperi"
>
> As it is highly unusual (and largely impossible) to quantify the relative
> size of the the contribution made by each author of GPL'ed software,
this
> has
> effectively changed an acknowledgment into a disparaging remark. It
> is also misleading, because I am the original creator of the Rcpp library
> and package (it was forked by Dirk Eddelbuettel and is now effectively
> part of R core development). Incidentally, the README file for
> Rcpp 0.6.7 shows that my contributions and influence were not
> confined to the period 2005-2006.
>
> A look at the change history of Rcpp would quickly reveal that to be
> fair other authors of Rcpp (and perhaps other R package authors)
> should have their contributions qualified with "a small portion of the
> code",
> or "administered by", but this is precisely the kind of
monitoring that
> inspired Richard Stallman to say we must "chuck the masks" in the
> GNU Manifesto.
>
> It is obviously a great benefit for the R community to have Rcpp actively
> supported by the R core team. I am very grateful for this. What I do
> have a problem with is the fact that my contributions are disparaged
> by people who have benefited from my past work.
>
> It seems to me that there are two possible resolutions. First, if my
> name is used in the Rcpp package it should be used to provide fair,
> accurate, and courteous acknowledgement for my past contributions.
> Second, if this is not possible, then my name should not be used at all.
> If the second option is selected then the only place my name should
> appear is in the copyright ("deputy") notices.
>
> Incidentally, the fact that the word "copyright" is profoundly
misleading in
> the context of GPL is not a new idea, and the word "copyleft" is
> sometimes used instead. But copyleft is not used in source files
> because this would unlink GPL from the well-established legal
> framework associated with "copyright", making it more difficult
for
> the FSF to enforce its principles (the critical link is provided by
> the copyright holders or "deputies").
>
> A final clarification: authors of original works do retain a legal
> copyright on  their original work in the sense that they are free
> to modify this work and release it as non-free software (or
> under a different free license), but this has no effect on the
> version that was released under GPL. The latter version and
> all of its progeny belong to the public (or to the FSF from
> a legal point of view).
>
> Please feel free to express your opinion on these matters.
>
> Thanks,
> Dominick
>
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

Dear all

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi <djsamperi at gmail.com>
wrote:
> The author line of the latest release of the R package
> Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
>
> From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick
Samperi"
>
> To: "a small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005
and
> 2006 by Dominick Samperi"
>
>From the info given in the thread, personally I'm sympathetic to
Dominick's complaint: the latter message is no proper way to
acknowledge the original author of the package. As I see it, the
project either:
- explicitly mentions the original author and the active (current)
contributors (and perhaps previous ones), or
- lines up all previous contributors in a line and singles out the
active contributors

But saying that the original author's contributions represented some
coding of random importance (implied in the message above), only a
subset of which made it to the current release, sounds disparaging to
my ears, too.

My humble opinion
Liviu

Dear Dominick,

The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism.  We are
quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized
authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong".   We
cannot, as a group, deal with anything else.

Everybody knows that you have an acrimonious relationship with the
current developers of Rcpp (and if they don't then a cursory look at the
rcpp-devel archives will confirm this).  The issue of the acknowledgment
that you are complaining about is merely a symptom of the further
deterioration of this relationship.   Appeals to authority or public
opinion are not going to help you obtain satisfaction.

Having your free software taken up and developed by other people is not
the worst thing that can happen.  For a free software developer, the
worst thing that can happen is that they get run over by a proverbial
bus and their software dies with them.

Martyn

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:21 -0500, Dominick Samperi
wrote:
> This post asks members of the R community, users and developers,
> to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License
> and R community policies more generally.
> 
> The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original
> contributors by not disseminating  misleading information about them.
> Indeed, for pragmatic reasons it effectively assumes that original authors
> have no rights regarding their GPL-ed software, and it implicitly leaves
> it up to the community of developers and users to conduct themselves in a
> fair and
> reasonable manner.
> 
> After discussing these matters with Richard Stallman I think
> we more-or-less agreed that a GPL "copyright" notice is nothing
> more than a way to deputise people to serve as protectors of the
> principles of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). It has nothing to
> do with protecting the "rights" or the "ideas" of
original
> contributors. There is no peer review, no requirement to
> explain your contributions, and anybody can essentially
> do as they please with the software provided they retain
> the copyright/FSF deputy notice---of course, you can
> always work-around this last restriction by modifying the
> implementation and placing it in a new file, because
> nobody is checking (GPL doesn't require it).
> 
> The GPL is all about "freedom", not responsibility. It is
entirely
> focused on "deregulation", not on the protection of intellectual
> property or professional reputations. It serves the useful purpose
> of making great software more widely available, but it does not
> dictate how people should behave and should not be used
> as a moral compass.  (See recent book titled
> "You are not a gadget: a manifesto", a rejoinder to the
> GNU manifesto.)
> 
> As a counterbalance I think the community of developers and
> users need to play a more active role in the evolution of
> shared values and expectations. In this spirit I respectfully request
> that the R community consider the following.
> 
> The author line of the latest release of the R package
> Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
> 
> From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick
Samperi"
> 
> To: "a small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005
and
> 2006 by Dominick Samperi"
> 
> As it is highly unusual (and largely impossible) to quantify the relative
> size of the the contribution made by each author of GPL'ed software,
this
> has
> effectively changed an acknowledgment into a disparaging remark. It
> is also misleading, because I am the original creator of the Rcpp library
> and package (it was forked by Dirk Eddelbuettel and is now effectively
> part of R core development). Incidentally, the README file for
> Rcpp 0.6.7 shows that my contributions and influence were not
> confined to the period 2005-2006.
> 
> A look at the change history of Rcpp would quickly reveal that to be
> fair other authors of Rcpp (and perhaps other R package authors)
> should have their contributions qualified with "a small portion of the
> code",
> or "administered by", but this is precisely the kind of
monitoring that
> inspired Richard Stallman to say we must "chuck the masks" in the
> GNU Manifesto.
> 
> It is obviously a great benefit for the R community to have Rcpp actively
> supported by the R core team. I am very grateful for this. What I do
> have a problem with is the fact that my contributions are disparaged
> by people who have benefited from my past work.
> 
> It seems to me that there are two possible resolutions. First, if my
> name is used in the Rcpp package it should be used to provide fair,
> accurate, and courteous acknowledgement for my past contributions.
> Second, if this is not possible, then my name should not be used at all.
> If the second option is selected then the only place my name should
> appear is in the copyright ("deputy") notices.
> 
> Incidentally, the fact that the word "copyright" is profoundly
misleading in
> the context of GPL is not a new idea, and the word "copyleft" is
> sometimes used instead. But copyleft is not used in source files
> because this would unlink GPL from the well-established legal
> framework associated with "copyright", making it more difficult
for
> the FSF to enforce its principles (the critical link is provided by
> the copyright holders or "deputies").
> 
> A final clarification: authors of original works do retain a legal
> copyright on  their original work in the sense that they are free
> to modify this work and release it as non-free software (or
> under a different free license), but this has no effect on the
> version that was released under GPL. The latter version and
> all of its progeny belong to the public (or to the FSF from
> a legal point of view).
> 
> Please feel free to express your opinion on these matters.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dominick
> 
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and its attachments are strictly confidenti...{{dropped:8}}