On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Dominick Samperi
<djsamperi@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]]

