[Rd] [Rcpp-devel] GPL and R Community Policies (Rcpp)

Martin Maechler maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch
Thu Dec 2 17:12:45 CET 2010

>>>>> Dominick Samperi <djsamperi at gmail.com>
>>>>>     on Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:27:58 -0500 writes:

    > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Gavin Simpson <gavin.simpson at ucl.ac.uk>wrote:
    >> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
    >> <snip />
    >> > > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
    >> > > commenting on this particular case but only the general ideas in this
    >> > > thread.  Also I was not suggesting that the comments in the code were
    >> > > purposefully misleading, only that they might be misleading since they
    >> > > could be interpreted in terms of contribution even though they are
    >> > > stated in terms of lines of code.  The author of the phrase may very
    >> > > well have felt that the current team had done a lot of work to add
    >> > > design ideas and develop and promote the software but perhaps the
    >> > > unfortunate way in how it was expressed in that phrase that came out
    >> > > as a seeming comment on the original creator's contribution rather
    >> > > than the intended comment on their own, presumably also significant,
    >> > > contribution.
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > There is no reason given why this
    >> > should happen now, at this moment, and no explanation why
    >> > the same standard should not be applied to other package authors,
    >> > including other authors of Rcpp.
    >> Dominick,
    >> You feel you are the aggrieved party so of course you will find
    >> conspiracy in the timing. An equally plausible explanation is that the
    >> current set of developers on Rcpp intended to alter the "contributions",
    >> to better reflect the current state of the package, some time ago but it
    >> slipped through the cracks.

    > While we are in the housecleaning mood, perhaps the "contributions"
    > can be reflected even better by removing all references to my name
    > as I have suggested.

    >> You are predisposed to see the bad where non may exist. But also, you
    >> should be discussing this in private with the package developers.
    >> There is nothing in this thread of relevance to R-devel (other than to
    >> publicly refute your claims so as to balance the record should someone
    >> come across this in the archives) as this has nothing to do with
    >> developing R. There is no-one here who can speak for the "R Community",
    >> because such a thing is not a concrete entity - you will just get the
    >> opinions of individuals. It is to the credit of this list (R-Devel) that
    >> this has not descended into a vitriolic stream of claim and counter
    >> claim.
    >> As for your claims about R Core, Doug has succinctly and clearly
    >> addressed your claims in that regard, regardless what you may personally
    >> believe. Rcpp is *not* an official product of the R Foundation, and
    >> neither is it part of the R distribution.
    >> Can we please take this elsewhere?
    >> Gavin.

Yes, please.
I think Dominick has received several suggestions and has got a few
views from a tiny but not insignificant fraction of "the R
--> Thanks to all contributors
    and that should be *it*.

Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich
(Administrator of the R-devel mailing list)

More information about the R-devel mailing list