[R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Adelchi Azzalini]

Thanks for this information, Mark.

Given the phrase "small but important function my package uses", it seems 
that you included in your package some code, reproducing it verbatim. 
Do I understand correctly?
In my case, the code which I am actually using is the R porting of  code
originally written in another language, namely Matlab.

Best wishes,

Adelchi


> On 1 Jun 2020, at 23:37, R. Mark Sharp <rmsharp using me.com> wrote:
> 
> Adelchi,
> 
> I have a similar situation where I had made all of the typical academic references within the code and documentation for a small but important function my package uses. I was asked by the CRAN reviewers to add the author of that function to the DESCRIPTION Authors using R section. I added the following:
> person("Terry", "Therneau", role = c("aut”))
> 
> Mark
> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
> 7526 Meadow Green St.
> San Antonio, TX 78251
> mobile: 210-218-2868
> rmsharp using me.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Adelchi Azzalini <azzalini using stat.unipd.it>
>> Subject: [R] a question of etiquette
>> Date: June 1, 2020 at 11:34:00 AM CDT
>> To: r-help using r-project.org
>> 
>> The new version of a package which I maintain will include a new function which I have ported to R from Matlab.
>> The documentation of this R function indicates the authors of the original Matlab code, reference to their paper, URL of the source code.
>> 
>> Question: is this adequate, or should I include them as co-authors of the package, or as contributors, or what else?
>> Is there a general policy about this matter?
>> 
>> Adelchi Azzalini
>> http://azzalini.stat.unipd.it/
>> 
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-help using r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>