Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
Well, I'm very sorry for the outburst, it was completely inappropriate. I don't actually mind the inconvenience - it's rather instructive as to how badly things can go. I was lasshing out as it's really just ironic that you want to stamp out references to yourself in a package (how many on this list really knew the details before, or cared?) but have now immortalized your contribution in the loudest way here on a list where it's really not relevant. Cheers, Mike. On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Michael Sumner mdsum...@gmail.com wrote: Christ, can we remove all references from the mailing lists while we're at it? Look, I want to release software to CRAN, and I would like to do it without having to explain those remarks in Rcpp. I understand your frustration, but the authors of Rcpp have made it clear that private emails will be ignored. I think I have the right to decline the kind of acknowledgement that appears in Rcpp, and there is no rule that says it must be retained. This is a very simple resolution that would end this thread (to the delight of many readers I am sure). Sorry for the inconvenience, Dominick On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.com wrote: Dirk, Please let me know whether or not you will comply with my request to remove references to my name in Rcpp (except copyright notices). Thanks, Dominick On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote: On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote: | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of | my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used, | but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way | it is used in the recent update. As I pointed out, you change your mind on this every 12 months, limiting my patience and willingness for these dances. It has also been suggested by other than attribution is clearer if you listed as the maintainer of the 2005/2006 code that we started from in 2008. The change that this thread is a reaction to happened a few days ago, not 12 months ago. If I wavered in the past it was because I was being forced to compete with my own work, not a pleasant place to be. Are you telling me that you refuse to stop using my name in Rcpp (except in copyright notices)? Are you telling me that you will continue to use my name and update the associated status as you see fit, whether or not I approve or consent to those changes? Please answer yes or no. Thanks, Dominick [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel -- Michael Sumner Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania Hobart, Australia e-mail: mdsum...@gmail.com -- Michael Sumner Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania Hobart, Australia e-mail: mdsum...@gmail.com __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
Christ, can we remove all references from the mailing lists while we're at it? On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.com wrote: Dirk, Please let me know whether or not you will comply with my request to remove references to my name in Rcpp (except copyright notices). Thanks, Dominick On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote: On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote: | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of | my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used, | but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way | it is used in the recent update. As I pointed out, you change your mind on this every 12 months, limiting my patience and willingness for these dances. It has also been suggested by other than attribution is clearer if you listed as the maintainer of the 2005/2006 code that we started from in 2008. The change that this thread is a reaction to happened a few days ago, not 12 months ago. If I wavered in the past it was because I was being forced to compete with my own work, not a pleasant place to be. Are you telling me that you refuse to stop using my name in Rcpp (except in copyright notices)? Are you telling me that you will continue to use my name and update the associated status as you see fit, whether or not I approve or consent to those changes? Please answer yes or no. Thanks, Dominick [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel -- Michael Sumner Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania Hobart, Australia e-mail: mdsum...@gmail.com __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Michael Sumner mdsum...@gmail.com wrote: Christ, can we remove all references from the mailing lists while we're at it? Look, I want to release software to CRAN, and I would like to do it without having to explain those remarks in Rcpp. I understand your frustration, but the authors of Rcpp have made it clear that private emails will be ignored. I think I have the right to decline the kind of acknowledgement that appears in Rcpp, and there is no rule that says it must be retained. This is a very simple resolution that would end this thread (to the delight of many readers I am sure). Sorry for the inconvenience, Dominick On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.com wrote: Dirk, Please let me know whether or not you will comply with my request to remove references to my name in Rcpp (except copyright notices). Thanks, Dominick On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote: On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote: | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of | my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used, | but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way | it is used in the recent update. As I pointed out, you change your mind on this every 12 months, limiting my patience and willingness for these dances. It has also been suggested by other than attribution is clearer if you listed as the maintainer of the 2005/2006 code that we started from in 2008. The change that this thread is a reaction to happened a few days ago, not 12 months ago. If I wavered in the past it was because I was being forced to compete with my own work, not a pleasant place to be. Are you telling me that you refuse to stop using my name in Rcpp (except in copyright notices)? Are you telling me that you will continue to use my name and update the associated status as you see fit, whether or not I approve or consent to those changes? Please answer yes or no. Thanks, Dominick [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel -- Michael Sumner Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania Hobart, Australia e-mail: mdsum...@gmail.com [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
Dirk, Please let me know whether or not you will comply with my request to remove references to my name in Rcpp (except copyright notices). Thanks, Dominick On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote: On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote: | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of | my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used, | but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way | it is used in the recent update. As I pointed out, you change your mind on this every 12 months, limiting my patience and willingness for these dances. It has also been suggested by other than attribution is clearer if you listed as the maintainer of the 2005/2006 code that we started from in 2008. The change that this thread is a reaction to happened a few days ago, not 12 months ago. If I wavered in the past it was because I was being forced to compete with my own work, not a pleasant place to be. Are you telling me that you refuse to stop using my name in Rcpp (except in copyright notices)? Are you telling me that you will continue to use my name and update the associated status as you see fit, whether or not I approve or consent to those changes? Please answer yes or no. Thanks, Dominick [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote: There are repeated claims concerning a Rcpp fork. Let's address both terms in turn. i) Rcpp was used in November 2008 as the name for a re-launch of a package which had seen releases on CRAN in 2005/2006 during which it was also renamed to RcppTemplate. Hence no package of name Rcpp had existed for years; the package's own author had moved on to anther name (RcppTemplate as it were). As such, no other package conflicted with the name. To my knowledge, there is no 'namespace reservation into eternity' for project names their very authors have liberated. If I missed a precedent, I would appreciate a pointer. We still use the name Rcpp today (in what is an almost entirely rewritten package with vastly expanded functionality) as it is useful in communicating the basic purpose: integrating R and C++. ii) The usage of fork is simply wrong. As running 'dict fork' on my Unix machine shows (among many other entries covering anything from the eating utensil to the system call): fork In the open-source community, a fork is what occurs when two (or more) versions of a software package's source code are being developed in parallel which once shared a common code base, and these multiple versions of the source code have irreconcilable differences between them. This should not be confused with a development branch, which may later be folded back into the original source code base. Nor should it be confused with what happens when a new distribution of Linux or some other distribution is created, because that largely assembles pieces than can and will be used in other distributions without conflict. Forking is uncommon; in fact, it is so uncommon that individual instances loom large in hacker folklore. Notable in this class were the http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html (Emacs/XEmacs fork), the GCC/EGCS fork (later healed by a merger) and the forks among the FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD operating systems. Note the when two (or more) versions of a software package's source code are being developed in parallel. Ergo, a fork would have required another living project with on-going development. But the code previously known at Rcpp/RcppTemplate was anything but living, this can easily be verified by looking at the (preferably time-sorted) directory at CRAN (see link [1] below). So let's please stop calling this a fork of Rcpp. The Rcpp / RcppTemplate project was not live in late 2008; we changed that and started a relaunch under the (unused !!) name Rcpp which now, a good two years later, looks pretty healthy with four contributor and growing use within the R community. Rcpp has been almost completely rewritten and enhanced, but I fail to see the bitterness of its original author. There could be some pride in seeing ideas re-used. But to each their own. Lastly, for the associated 'remove my name' request: I have emails from 2008 requesting this (which I accomodated), I also have emails from 2009 that requested the reversal (also accomodated). This is getting old. OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used, but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way it is used in the recent update. On the fork question, in November of 2009 you were maintaining an old version of my software for your own purposes because I did not have time to contribute updates to CRAN. The changes that you made were minimal (as a diff would show). GPL permits you to do this. Whether you call this a fork or not is a language issue. In November of 2009 I released an update with many improvements including object mapping support that was missing from my old software and from the version that you were maintaining. I asked you to remove the version you were maintaining so there would be only one Rcpp library, and you refused, invited Romain to join the project, and added many of the features that I had just released. Thus the real fork occured in November 2009. Dominick [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote: | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of | my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used, | but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way | it is used in the recent update. As I pointed out, you change your mind on this every 12 months, limiting my patience and willingness for these dances. It has also been suggested by other than attribution is clearer if you listed as the maintainer of the 2005/2006 code that we started from in 2008. | On the fork question, in November of 2009 you were maintaining | an old version of my software for your own purposes because I did Well a glance at the changelog (either from the source, the SVN repo or via the bottom of http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/rcpp.changelog.html) clearly shows that by November 2009 we were nine releases into it. There are a full 210 lines of changes including 2009-11-18 Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org * DESCRIPTION: Add Dominick back into Authors per his new request reversing his requests to be removed from last December As I stated, this was maintaining, enhancing, solidifying, ... a codebase I and others used, using an API and code that we were free to use under GPL. You had released nothing from late 2006 to late 2009 -- and as I recall what you released then (and withdrew weeks later) was not even compatible with your own old API. But our Rcpp was -- that is called maintaining code. | not have time to contribute updates to CRAN. The changes that | you made were minimal (as a diff would show). GPL permits you We beg to differ. | to do this. Whether you call this a fork or not is a language issue. | | In November of 2009 I released an update with many improvements | including object mapping support that was missing from my old | software and from the version that you were maintaining. I asked | you to remove the version you were maintaining so there would | be only one Rcpp library, and you refused, invited Romain to | join the project, and added many of the features that I had just | released. Thus the real fork occured in November 2009. Nonsense -- No code, design, ideas, of your shortlived RcppTemplate are in Rcpp. Romain and I repeatedly said so, and we will not let you paint an alternate history. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote: On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote: | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of | my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used, | but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way | it is used in the recent update. As I pointed out, you change your mind on this every 12 months, limiting my patience and willingness for these dances. It has also been suggested by other than attribution is clearer if you listed as the maintainer of the 2005/2006 code that we started from in 2008. The change that this thread is a reaction to happened a few days ago, not 12 months ago. If I wavered in the past it was because I was being forced to compete with my own work, not a pleasant place to be. Are you telling me that you refuse to stop using my name in Rcpp (except in copyright notices)? Are you telling me that you will continue to use my name and update the associated status as you see fit, whether or not I approve or consent to those changes? Please answer yes or no. Thanks, Dominick [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote: On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote: | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of | my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used, | but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way | it is used in the recent update. As I pointed out, you change your mind on this every 12 months, limiting my patience and willingness for these dances. It has also been suggested by other than attribution is clearer if you listed as the maintainer of the 2005/2006 code that we started from in 2008. We? Romain did not arrive on the scene until after November of 2009. To live outside the law you must be honest --- Bob Dylan. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.com wrote: We? Romain did not arrive on the scene until after November of 2009. To live outside the law you must be honest --- Bob Dylan. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] Peter Dalgaard and Martin Maechler were pretty clear if you ask me. Mud slinging can be done at 4chan.com Goodnight. -- Joris Meys Statistical consultant Ghent University Faculty of Bioscience Engineering Department of Applied mathematics, biometrics and process control tel : +32 9 264 59 87 joris.m...@ugent.be --- Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Terminology clarification (Re: GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Joris Meys jorism...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.com wrote: We? Romain did not arrive on the scene until after November of 2009. To live outside the law you must be honest --- Bob Dylan. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] Peter Dalgaard and Martin Maechler were pretty clear if you ask me. Mud slinging can be done at 4chan.com I borrowed this Dylan quote from a recent r-devel thread (must .Call C function return SEXP?). I think it sums up the Free software / Open science dilemma pretty well. It was meant to entertain, not to offend. Goodnight. -- Joris Meys Statistical consultant Ghent University Faculty of Bioscience Engineering Department of Applied mathematics, biometrics and process control tel : +32 9 264 59 87 joris.m...@ugent.be --- Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
