[Rd] Rcpp: Clarifying the meaning of GPL?

[Dominick Samperi]

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
>