From djsamperi at earthlink.net  Thu Dec 24 06:59:18 2009
From: djsamperi at earthlink.net (Dominick Samperi)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:59:18 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Rcpp: Clarifying the meaning of GPL?
In-Reply-To: <e8e755250912231342i4008c156o7545faac946a2b5e@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>	
	<59d7961d0912231321k2df5cb90lf128966969d11974@mail.gmail.com>
	<e8e755250912231342i4008c156o7545faac946a2b5e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B330336.50004@earthlink.net>


Jeff Ryan wrote:
> One critical aspect to this is the fact that RcppTemplate seems to
> have been where the Rcpp work moved to _before_ abandoning the Rcpp
> project.
>   
The Rcpp package was not abandoned, it was renamed to RcppTemplate
because I thought it would be more useful for the R community to have a
complete solution to the package development problem,
not just a stand-alone library (Rcpp). The Rcpp package (not to be confused
with the Rcpp library!) forked from RcppTemplate_5.3, not Rcpp_x_x,
and RcppTemplate was in the CRAN archives the whole time (not
abandoned).

This explains Stavros' confusion about the naming, and it also highlights
the questions raised by Henrik. Perhaps there is a need for a package
name registrar.

> Plus, everyone benefits from competition.  And we have a good one here.
>
>   
I do not think having to compete with your own work is a "good one."
I may have to rename RcppTemplate and the Rcpp library again to
something entirely different.

Dominick



[Rd] Rcpp: Clarifying the meaning of GPL?
Dominick Samperi