From hb at stat.berkeley.edu  Wed Dec 23 22:21:05 2009
From: hb at stat.berkeley.edu (Henrik Bengtsson)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:21:05 -0800
Subject: [Rd] Rcpp: Clarifying the meaning of GPL?
In-Reply-To: <8b356f880912231300n3ed18c84vde9eef20a288f82f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B310C77.9030806@earthlink.net>
	<8b356f880912222008o47ee54c9k267773cc570708d2@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B31AA41.2010700@earthlink.net>
	<8b356f880912230720g6ee4f82an37980cd3586f7f41@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B323FE6.8080800@earthlink.net>
	<8b356f880912231300n3ed18c84vde9eef20a288f82f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59d7961d0912231321k2df5cb90lf128966969d11974@mail.gmail.com>

I guess one problem is who is in charge of the name Rcpp on CRAN.  For
instance, can I "fork" of yet another version of Rcpp (or any other
CRAN package) and submit it to CRAN?  Can the original author submit a
completely different Rcpp package breaking all the additions made by
the new contributors?  I don't think the GPL answers those questions,
but maybe there is something on the ownership to the (original)
"title/label/name/identifier" of a GPL artifact.

My $.02

/Henrik

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> The central purpose of the GPL license is precisely to allow and indeed
> encourage the behavior your are criticizing. ?In particular, when you
> release software under the GPL, you are *explicitly* giving recipients of
> the software the right to modify it pretty much in any way (trivial or
> radical) they please and redistribute it by any means they choose (as long
> as they redistribute source with binary and maintain the legal notices).
> There is no legal or ethical obligation to consult the original author in
> any way, or even to acknowledge the original author other than by
> maintaining his or her copyright notice. ?The only legal obligation is to
> maintain the copyright notice and the GPL license itself and to include a
> notice that the software has been modified (GPL3 section 5a).
>
> This is not an accident. ?The promulgators of the GPL, the FSF, believe that
> these are the conditions under which software is best distributed -- that
> implementors should be free to combine bits and pieces of software from a
> variety of GPL-compatible licenses with no fear of violating any of their
> licenses.
>
> Obviously these legal and ethical conditions are quite different from those
> which prevail in academic publishing, and if you don't like them, you should
> be releasing your software under a different license -- which will probably
> have the effect of making your software less useful to the community and
> therefore less widely known and used.
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -s
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Dominick Samperi
> <djsamperi at earthlink.net>wrote:
>
>> In my view what has happened is not much different from a situation where I
>> place my
>> name as co-author on a research paper that you have created, without your
>> permission,
>> after making a few small edits that you may not agree with. Furthermore, if
>> you complain
>> I simply present the results (at conferences) as my own without mentioning
>> your name.
>>
>> Is this just a dispute between implementers?
>>
>> Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>>
>> ?On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Dominick Samperi <
>>> djsamperi at earthlink.net <mailto:djsamperi at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ? ?Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?That said, as a matter of courtesy and clarity, I'd think that
>>> ? ? ? ?a fork should use a different name.
>>>
>>> ? ?Yes, the point is that this is not a legal or technical matter, it
>>> ? ?is a matter of professional courtesy.
>>>
>>> ? ?I take this as one vote for the name change.
>>>
>>>
>>> The naming and maintenance history of this package (or these packages:
>>> Rcpp and RcppTemplate) appears to be complicated, and I have no interest in
>>> becoming an arbitrator or voter in what is a dispute between you and other
>>> implementers.
>>>
>>> ? ?On US copyright law, this should not be confused with "copyright"
>>> ? ?notices that appear in GPL
>>> ? ?source code. Remember that these are really "copyleft" notices,
>>> ? ?and copyleft is designed to
>>> ? ?protect the rights of copiers, not original contributors.
>>>
>>>
>>> The copyright notice is a correct and legally valid copyright notice. ?The
>>> GPL (copyleft) is the copyright *license*. ?Like all licenses, it defines
>>> the relationship between authors and copiers. ?The GPL explicitly avoided
>>> the so-called "obnoxious BSD advertising clause", which has requirements
>>> about giving credit.
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?-s
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ? ? ? ?[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



[Rd] Rcpp: Clarifying the meaning of GPL?
Henrik Bengtsson