search for: authorship

Good evening list members, I have the following model: class Author < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :authorships has_many :books, :through => : authorships end Should I be able to do the following? Author.find(:first).book_ids = [1,2,3] I ask, because it doesn''t. The docs state that it should, but it doesn''t specialise in the case of a :through This works fine BTW: Autho...

Greetings again: I''m simplifying the case I presented earlier regarding the use of has_many :through. I''m using DHH''s example from "Persuing Beauty with Ruby On Rails". Here are his models: class Author < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :authorships has_many :books, :through => :authorships end class Book < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :authorships has_many :authors, :through => :authorships end class Authorship < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :author belongs_to :book end Here''s the code sample he provides to...

A question on authorship and attribution policy for the Wiki. I originally credited Alan Bartlett for the page content on HowTos/ConfigureNewVideoCard, but he was not comfortable with that and the reference got removed in the edit process. I generally do not include my name on Wiki pages I create, but it is fairly common...

> The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably copyright > holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would be a CRAN > policy violation ... It's a bit of a philosophical question right now, but at some point in a developing package's life - particularly one that starts small but is subsequently refactored in growth - there may be no code

...at some point in a developing package's life - particularly one that starts small but is subsequently refactored in growth - there may be no code left that was contributed by the original developer. > > Is there a point at which the original developer should not stay on the author list? Authorship is not just about code. For example, there are functions in R which have been completely recoded, but the design and documentation remain. Copyright can apply to designs and there is shading between inspiration and infringement. And many of us believe that inspiration should be credited as...

...ll the rights > as anyone else granted by the license. > > However, CRAN policies go beyond that and say > > "Where code is copied (or derived) from the work of others (including from > R itself), care must be taken that any copyright/license statements are > preserved and authorship is not misrepresented. > Preferably, an ?Authors at R? would be used with ?ctb? roles for the authors > of such code. Alternatively, the ?Author? field should list these authors > as contributors. > Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, > this should...

...y rights of all components of the package must be clear and unambiguous (including from the authors specification in the DESCRIPTION file). Where code is copied (or derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship is not misrepresented. Preferably, an ?Authors at R? would be used with ?ctb? roles for the authors of such code. Alternatively, the ?Author? field should list these authors as contributors. Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, this should preferably be indicated...

> > I read the CRAN policies twice, and there > > is no official guideline on how to compile the citation. The policies are about copyright and IP, not credited authorship. There's overlap but they are not the same thing. You can see whether someone is a copyright holder by referring to the license you had and whether there is any of their content remaining. But that might not mean they are package 'authors'. If you reuse code verbatim from another pack...

...ng that I am uncomfortable with. There is a > huge amount of work being involved in this subsequent version, to which the > former author didn't contribute anything at all... > It really doesn't imply this at all, at least to me (and I don't think I'm alone here). In most authorship-listing schemes first author is the one who did the most direct work (wrote the draft, in the case of an article). On the other hand, citing Dusa (2015) implies NO work by Other in the entity being cited. That is clearly and concretely not the case. I will leave you with this, which may sound like...

...ackage must be clear and unambiguous (including from > the > > authors specification in the DESCRIPTION file). Where code is copied (or > > derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be > > taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship > is > > not misrepresented. > > Preferably, an ?Authors at R? would be used with ?ctb? roles for the > authors > > of such code. Alternatively, the ?Author? field should list these authors > > as contributors. > > > > Where copyrights are held by an entity...

...components of the package must be clear and unambiguous (including from the > authors specification in the DESCRIPTION file). Where code is copied (or > derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be > taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship is > not misrepresented. > Preferably, an ?Authors at R? would be used with ?ctb? roles for the authors > of such code. Alternatively, the ?Author? field should list these authors > as contributors. > > Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, > th...

Simply advice: The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably copyright holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would be a CRAN policy violation since even if he does not develop further on, he developed parts of the so far existing package (if you talk about a CRAN package). I am not a lawyer, hence I cannot speak for copyright/license stuff in

Dear Gabriel, On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote: > [...] > >> >> I apologize for pushing this topic to the limit, but I haven't got an >> answer to this question yet... >> > > With respect, not receiving the answer you wanted isn't the same as not > receiving an answer. > I very much appreciate

Those of you who track applications of R may be interested in the following: "The purpose of this paper is then to apply modern text analysis techniques using the R statistical packege [sic] to compare the works attributed to Shakespeare to those of leading alternate candidates such as Sir Frances Bacon, Christopher Marlow, and Edward de Vere...".

...components of the package must be clear and unambiguous (including from the > authors specification in the DESCRIPTION file). Where code is copied (or > derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be > taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship is > not misrepresented. > Preferably, an ?Authors at R? would be used with ?ctb? roles for the authors > of such code. Alternatively, the ?Author? field should list these authors > as contributors. > > Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, this &g...

On 05.10.2015 23:47, Andrew Robinson wrote: > As a fourth option, I wonder if the first author could fork the package? > > Presumably, appropriately cited, a fork is permitted by the license under > which it was released. Then the original package, by both authors, still > exists (and a final version could point to the new one) and the new > package, citing the previous version

On 07/10/2015 1:39 PM, Tim Keitt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com >> wrote: > >> Another example: The "Author" of the Ecdat package is Yves Croissant < >> yves.croissant at let.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr>. I'm the Maintainer. At some >> point, I may add my name to the list of Authors but I

Adrian, I am not on the CRAN or R-core teams, so the following is my own view, but... > library(QCA) > > Users are encouraged to cite this package as: > > Dusa, Adrian (2015). QCA: Qualitative Comparative Analysis. R Package > Version 1.2-0, > URL: http://cran.r-project.org/package=QCA > > This is just an encouragement, not a requirement, and the official citation

...e clear and unambiguous (including from >> the >>> authors specification in the DESCRIPTION file). Where code is copied (or >>> derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be >>> taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship >> is >>> not misrepresented. >>> Preferably, an ?Authors at R? would be used with ?ctb? roles for the >> authors >>> of such code. Alternatively, the ?Author? field should list these authors >>> as contributors. >>> >>> Where copyri...

...ght holders, otherwise you have all the rights as anyone else granted by the license. However, CRAN policies go beyond that and say "Where code is copied (or derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship is not misrepresented. Preferably, an ?Authors at R? would be used with ?ctb? roles for the authors of such code. Alternatively, the ?Author? field should list these authors as contributors. Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, this should preferably be indicated v...