Message-ID: <4B323FE6.8080800@earthlink.net>
Date: 2009-12-23T16:05:58Z
From: Dominick Samperi
Subject: Rcpp: Clarifying the meaning of GPL?
In-Reply-To: <8b356f880912230720g6ee4f82an37980cd3586f7f41@mail.gmail.com>
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
>