Bug#905674: parallel: move to nonfree

20 views
Skip to first unread message

junk 77011

unread,
Aug 7, 2018, 7:10:02 PM8/7/18
to
Package: parallel
Version: 20141022
Severity: normal

usage of parallel requires agreeing to a click-wrap that is inconsistent with the DFSG. it should be moved to non-free

DFSG:
"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor"

parallell --bibtex:
"When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication please cite:
...
Or you can get GNU Parallel without this requirement by paying 10000 EUR.
...
Type: 'will cite' and press enter."







Adam Borowski

unread,
Aug 7, 2018, 7:50:03 PM8/7/18
to
Control: severity -1 serious

This has been discussed on IRC. On #debian-til which is not the proper
channel, but with at least one FTPmaster present.

Alas, this was our undoing:
14:35 < lamby> To avoid stepping on each other's toes, which of us is going
to file that in the BTS? :)
as ultimately no one did.

Besides the practical issue of nagging breaking scripts (#884793), requiring
a fee (citation or €10000) is a very obvious breach of the DFSG. That you
can fool the check by technical means, creating a file with a false promise,
is no different from fooling license checks in proprietary software.

This requirement wasn't present when the package passed FTPmaster review.

Note that parallel's functionality is also provided by moreutils and xargs
-P, thus moving the package out of main would be just an inconvenience (four
packages need to be adjusted: roary last-align freebayes symfony).


Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ So a Hungarian gypsy mountainman, lumberjack by day job,
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ brigand by, uhm, hobby, invented a dish: goulash on potato
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ pancakes. Then the Polish couldn't decide which of his
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ adjectives to use for the dish's name.

ydi...@free.fr

unread,
Sep 9, 2018, 12:30:03 PM9/9/18
to
Adam wrote:
> Note that parallel's functionality is also provided by moreutils and xargs
> -P, thus moving the package out of main would be just an inconvenience (four
> packages need to be adjusted: roary last-align freebayes symfony).

That may be true of the basic usage of the tool.

However, I just stumbled on this package through the "sem" tool (aka. "parallel --semaphore",
which seems by far the most compelling tool to prevent parallel execution of particular make
rules (eg. some launching git commands that require acquiring the same lock).

(that said, the fact the package cannot be installed alongside moreutils is another
blocker ;)

Stefan Monnier

unread,
Sep 10, 2018, 10:30:03 PM9/10/18
to
> usage of parallel requires agreeing to a click-wrap that is inconsistent
> with the DFSG. it should be moved to non-free
[...]
> parallell --bibtex:
> "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication
> please cite:
> ...
> Or you can get GNU Parallel without this requirement by paying 10000 EUR.
> ...
> Type: 'will cite' and press enter."

Apparently this was changed in the mean time to a wording that makes it
clear it's only a polite request and not a legal requirement.

So, AFAICT it doesn't conflict with the DFSG (at least, not any more).


Stefan

Adam Borowski

unread,
Sep 15, 2018, 8:50:03 AM9/15/18
to
Hi!
It would be nice if we had an official ftpmasters' position. So far, all
we have are remarks on IRC.

The case here is the package "parallel" having recentlish grown a demand for
either a citation or 10000€. This is explicitely forbidden by the GPL FAQ:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation
and interpreting the request as a demand rather than mere suggestion is
reinforced by the alternative being a (high) monetary fee rather than
nothing.

The issue has been raised by multiple people on multiple bug trackers.


Unless my analysis is wrong, I see the following options: either

* the demand is considered a part of the license, in which case the package
needs to be moved to non-free or removed from the archive completely
(depending whether the demand is considered overriding a part of the GPL3
or being a conflicting addition)

* the demand is a part of the code only. It then can be removed (as it
causes practical problems like #884793), against express wishes of the
upstream -- although in this case, per the legal demands made by upstream
in newer versions, we'd need to rename the package[1][2].

+ renaming doesn't sound like a bad idea: pkg:parallel diverts
/usr/bin/parallel from pkg:moreutils despite having a completely
incompatible interface, thus breaking unrelated software that depends
on moreutils. Folks on IRC seemed to be of opinion that this means
"programs with different functionality but with the same filenames"
rather than "two programs having the same functionality but different
implementations" (Policy 10.1) (authoritativeness of random folks on
IRC (even if otherwise qualified), again...).

In either case, four packages {,Build-}Depending on parallel would need to
be adjusted: freebayes roary symfony last-align.


[1]. Although how Ole Tange can claim trademark on a name used by Tollef
Fog Heen and others earlier is beyond me. The US registration is for
"GNU Parallel" rather than "parallel"...

[2]. And/or executable name.
--
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.

Ansgar Burchardt

unread,
Sep 17, 2018, 7:50:03 AM9/17/18
to
On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 14:04 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> It would be nice if we had an official ftpmasters' position. So far, all
> we have are remarks on IRC.
>
> The case here is the package "parallel" having recentlish grown a demand for
> either a citation or 10000€. This is explicitely forbidden by the GPL FAQ:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation
> and interpreting the request as a demand rather than mere suggestion is
> reinforced by the alternative being a (high) monetary fee rather than
> nothing.
>
> The issue has been raised by multiple people on multiple bug trackers.

Vague references ("multiple bug trackers") aren't really helpful. I'm
not going to search for "multiple bug trackers" somewhere on the
internet.

> Unless my analysis is wrong, I see the following options: either
>
> * the demand is considered a part of the license, in which case the package
> needs to be moved to non-free or removed from the archive completely
> (depending whether the demand is considered overriding a part of the GPL3
> or being a conflicting addition)

It isn't in d/copyright and one of the copyright holders seems to have
said that this isn't a legal requirement (in
https://bugs.debian.org/905674#27). The other copyright holder is the
FSF which also don't think this should be a requirement as you cited
above.

> * the demand is a part of the code only. It then can be removed (as it
> causes practical problems like #884793), against express wishes of the
> upstream -- although in this case, per the legal demands made by upstream
> in newer versions, we'd need to rename the package[1][2].

Which legal demands?

Ansgar
(Shouldn't GNU parallel at least cite Perl itself? :-) )

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 6:00:03 PM12/1/18
to
Control: tags -1 +pending

Le dimanche, 21 octobre 2018, 18.59:26 h CET Ole Tange a écrit :
> Upgrading from 20141022 to 20180922 seems to address all issues.
>
> Can we close this ticket?

Live from the Bern BSP.

I have taken a long look at this bugreport log, and have concluded that under
GPL, Debian can as well just remove the concerned "parallel --citation"
functionality, and keep "parallel" in Debian main.

I have therefore uploaded a DELAYED/0 NMU with version 20161222-1.1 fixing
this bug through removal of all the citation mechanism. The full debdiff is
attached.

Cheers,
OdyX
parallel_20161222-1.1.debdiff
signature.asc

Rogério Brito

unread,
Dec 2, 2018, 1:10:03 PM12/2/18
to
Super thanks, Didier.

I'm extremely busy right now!

Thanks once again,

Rogério.

Ole Tange

unread,
Dec 3, 2018, 1:00:03 PM12/3/18
to
Dear Didier

Thanks for help organizing the BSP in Bern.

I have noticed that you have submitted a patch and closed this bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905674#77

I am sure you are trying to do what is best for free software. But
what looks like a good idea in the short run, may be a bad idea in the
long run. The long term survival of Debian depends on others building
free software that can be packaged, so destroying these people's
livelihood is a bad long term strategy.

In the reasoning for the patch you state:

> Quoting the gpl-faq:
[... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation ...]
> Therefore, removing this to make parallel GPL-compliant.

I think this is due to a misunderstanding.

Maybe you not aware that Richard M. Stallman together with the GNU
leaders have cleared the wording and the use of the citation notice,
and that he sees it as complying fully with GPLv3? And thus not in
conflict with https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation
The reasoning why there is no conflict is because citing is a matter
of honor - not law. Thus it does not restrict anyone from making use
of the program in a specific field of endeavor, but simply conveys
that you will be taking away future funding for development if you do
not cite.

The mail from RMS is included below.

Your patch therefore does not change the GPLv3-compliancy: The code
was already compliant.

But what your patch *does* do, is to make it harder to earn a living
from developing GNU Parallel and will make it much harder for me to
justify spending time maintaining GNU Parallel. Please help building
more free software instead of attacking the developer's livelihood.
Not everyone is so lucky that they are hired in a company where you
get paid to develop free software.

As Nadia Eghbal puts it in
https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer:

"Is it alright to compromise, or even deliberately ignore, the
happiness of maintainers so we that can enjoy free and open source
software?"

This describes very well what you are doing with the patch, and I
refuse to think that was your goal.

So if you want to help other developers make a living and thereby get
more free software made, I encourage you to revert the patch and
instead upgrade to 20180922: Maybe you simply were not aware that the
latest stable version (20180922) is *already* GPLv3 compliant.

Thanks for your work on free software. It is appreciated.


/Ole

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:07 AM Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> GNU leaders studied looked at the current version of GNU Parallel.
> Based on their report, I've concluded there is no problem in it.
:
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Rogério Brito

unread,
Dec 4, 2018, 3:50:03 PM12/4/18
to
I will update Debian's GNU parallel as soon as I can (before this next
weekend, if I can).

Thanks for all the discussion,

Rogério.

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:12 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <od...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Control: clone -1 -2
> Control: retitle -2 parallel 20161222-1.1 NMU removes upstream "--will-cite" functionality
> Control: reopen -2
> Control: notfound -2 20161222
> Control: found -2 20161222-1.1
> Control: severity -2 important
>
> Dear Ole,
>
> Le lundi, 3 décembre 2018, 18.55:00 h CET Ole Tange a écrit :
> > I have noticed that you have submitted a patch and closed this bug:
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905674#77
> >
> > I am sure you are trying to do what is best for free software. But
> > what looks like a good idea in the short run, may be a bad idea in the
> > long run. The long term survival of Debian depends on others building
> > free software that can be packaged, so destroying these people's
> > livelihood is a bad long term strategy.
> >
> > In the reasoning for the patch you state:
> > > Quoting the gpl-faq:
> > [... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation ...]
> >
> > > Therefore, removing this to make parallel GPL-compliant.
> >
> > I think this is due to a misunderstanding.
> >
> > Maybe you not aware that Richard M. Stallman together with the GNU
> > leaders have cleared the wording and the use of the citation notice,
> > and that he sees it as complying fully with GPLv3?
>
> I was not, but, as Debian Developer, I don't feel bound by RMS' (and "GNU
> leaders", whomever this designates) statements about GPLv3. What mattered for
> this now-closed bugreport is our DFSG; specifically it's article 1 (emphasis
> mine) and 5.
>
> > DFSG 1: Free Redistribution
> > The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or
> > giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
> > distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license
> > *may not require a royalty or other fee* for such sale.
>
> > DFSG 5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
>
> Le lundi, 3 décembre 2018, 18.55:00 h CET Ole Tange a écrit :
> > Your patch therefore does not change the GPLv3-compliancy: The code
> > was already compliant.
>
> I disagree; my understanding is that RMS&co declared parallel to carry no
> problem with regards to GPLv3 compliance in October 2018, probably for the
> latest upstream release.
>
> But Debian ships parallel 20161222 which:
> * contains a request for the user to promise academic citation,
> * imposes the use of either "--will-cite" or the presence of a
> `~.parallel/will-cite`, which makes it unnecessarily burdensome to use
> in a scripted manner.
>
> This is a clear attempt at side-stepping GPLv3 software freedoms by using
> guilt-inducting language. As the GPLv3 allows (almost any) modification, I've
> just went and did that, also to ensure that src:parallel can stay in the
> Debian main archive, where it belongs.
>
> > But what your patch *does* do, is to make it harder to earn a living
> > from developing GNU Parallel and will make it much harder for me to
> > justify spending time maintaining GNU Parallel.
>
> Be careful with such arguments: by merely distributing GNU parallel in its
> main archive, Debian is also vastly expanding the availability of GNU
> parallel. And if you do insist on getting Debian to rename it, you'll
> likely lose any incentive from "renamed GNU parallel" users getting it from
> the Debian archive.
>
> > As Nadia Eghbal puts it in
> > https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer:
> >
> > "Is it alright to compromise, or even deliberately ignore, the
> > happiness of maintainers so we that can enjoy free and open source
> > software?"
> >
> > This describes very well what you are doing with the patch, and I
> > refuse to think that was your goal.
>
> For the record:
> * My primary goal was to remove a "Release Critical" bug from Debian's next
> stable release, during a Bug Squashing Party;
> * While looking at this bug, it seemed obvious to me that merely removing the
> obnoxious phrasing and functionality was an easy way to fix this bug; in a
> GPLv3- and DFSG-compatible way.
> * I am not the Debian maintainer of src:parallel, so my contribution was one-
> -off.
> * I did a Non-Maintainer Upload immediately, following DevRef 5.11.1:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu-guidelines
> * I do think that making fine free software unnecessarily cumbersome to use,
> only to increase user's knowledge of the original author's funding
> initiatives is bad practice. This reduces the quality of software and
> is really on the line of what makes software really "free software"
> (I'm fine to disagree with RMS on that front). Weaker phrasing doesn't
> make the intent any better.
> * Prominent links or funding pitches are fine in _documentation_, as long as
> they:
> - don't imply that payment is mandatory;
> - don't impose citation;
> For instance, parallel 20161222 manpage's
> > If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
> … is not acceptable IMHO.
> * I am not a Debian FTP-master, in charge of specific interpretations of
> the DFSG.
>
> > So if you want to help other developers make a living and thereby get
> > more free software made, I encourage you to revert the patch and
> > instead upgrade to 20180922: Maybe you simply were not aware that the
> > latest stable version (20180922) is *already* GPLv3 compliant.
>
> I am not the Debian maintainer of src:parallel, and updating upstream
> versions is not acceptable as NMU; I did the smallest change that seemed
> acceptable to resolve the RC bug.
>
> Be assured that my patch was not directed at you personally; I removed
> _technical functionality_ that I felt was the reported bug.
>
> But… I can see how this new situation is not ideal for you; I'm therefore
> hereby cloning this bug to document that my NMU removes the "--will-cite"
> functionality from upstream parallel. What should/could happen now is that:
>
> * interested parties (you, FTP-master, …) discuss on that bug;
> * the Debian maintainers, when (and if) updating src:parallel to a new
> upstream release, will decide to adopt, update or remove my patch.
>
> > Thanks for your work on free software. It is appreciated.
>
> Yours is appreciated too.
>
> Cheers,
> OdyX

Kurt Fitzner

unread,
Jan 12, 2019, 10:30:02 PM1/12/19
to

Hi Rogerio,

I am writing in support of the recent patch to remove the citation message from Debian's version of GNU Parallel.  This citation solicitation is actually quite troubling from an academic perspective, not just from a licensing standpoint.

The assertion of Mr. Tange, the upstream author, that "[a]cademic tradition requires you to cite works you base your article on" is true, however the active words here are "works" and "base".  In this case, when writing an article, the nature of the "work" I would base my article on would be another article.  An academic article (in general) is not inherently based on the work of the programmer who wrote some of the software infrastructure used to create or analyze the data.  Mr. Tange's assertion that mere use of GNU Parallel constitutes a moral obligation to cite an entry-level self-help tutorial on how to use that software is an egregious mischaracterization of the academic tradition Mr. Tange relies on.  Especially, in this case, where the software in question has nothing to do with data analysis or production, but is a middleware parallelization job scheduler.  If the article in question is itself on middleware parallelization job schedulers, that's one thing.  In virtually every other case the notice is just fishing for something that is highly inappropriate.  The correct way of mentioning the software involved is in a footnote, or perhaps in an appendix, when describing how to replicate the results and analysis.  You include scripts involved, and the "evidence chain" of the data in such a way.  This is problematic for Mr. Tange, however, because footnotes are not tracked.  Citations are.  Which is clearly why he is fishing for them.

Now, the above isn't Debian's problem.  This is academia's problem.  What is Debian's problem is what will happen if Mr. Tange convinces Debian leadership that the citation-begging notice has to be allowed back in.  Because this will open the flood gates to everyone who wants the prestige of being cited in an academic journal.  All you have to do is have a minor article on a piece software, it doesn't have to be an academic article - just a how to use it will do, published literally anywhere that is citable, for any software in the processing-chain commonly used in academia.  Use a shell script, be prepared to have the Bash authors start putting in citation-begging notices.  Arguably those that wrote the actual Linux task schedulers and SMP code are just as worthy of notice as the authors of GNU Parallel.  Or GCC, or PERL, or Python.  Or how about grep?  If this citation-begging notice gets back in to Debian, it will become a far larger issue than just whether or not Mr. Tange is skating on the right side of the GPL/DFSG legalities.  Debian is going to have to ask the question on whether advertising in a STDERR message is appropriate at all.

I would ask you, if and when this comes up for review with the leadership at Debian, to bring up these issues.  It is my hope that Debian will see that it is in their best interest to look at a policy that will exclude this kind of behaviour, before it spreads.

Thank-you

Regards,

      Kurt Fitzner

 

Ole Tange

unread,
Jan 14, 2019, 1:10:02 AM1/14/19
to
Hi Kurt Fitzner

You question whether software should be cited and if so how?

These links suggest: Yes, you should cite software, and if the author
suggests a way of citing use that.

* https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html
* https://libguides.mit.edu/c.php?g=551454&p=3900280
* https://www.software.ac.uk/how-cite-software
* https://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/APA6th/software
* https://libguides.rgu.ac.uk/c.php?g=380081&p=2983956
* https://journals.aas.org/policy-statement-on-software/
* https://guides.lib.monash.edu/c.php?g=219786&p=1454293
* https://www.maxqda.com/how-to-cite-maxqda

If you feel the benefit from using GNU Parallel is too small to
warrant a citation, then prove that by simply using another tool.

Here are other examples of software showing how to cite. Some of these
refer to peer-reviewed articles - others do not:

* https://www.scipy.org/citing.html
* https://octave.org/doc/interpreter/Citing-Octave-in-Publications.html
(Octave has citation for individual packages, too)
* https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-May/161481.html
* https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/utils/html/citation.html
(R has citation for individual packages, too)
* http://www.partek.com/citing-partek-software-in-a-publication/
* http://www.fluortools.com/misc/cite
* https://www.maxqda.com/how-to-cite-maxqda
* https://www.open-mpi.org/papers/
* https://www.tensorflow.org/about/bib
* http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/praat.html

I would think that most people, who appreciate GNU Parallel, would be
happy to help funding the development even if it is simply by making a
citation.

So what really puzzles me is: If you feel very strongly against
helping to fund future development of GNU Parallel, why not use an
alternative tool? No one forces you to use GNU Parallel. Here is a
list of alternatives to help you choose:
https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_alternatives.html


You also pose it might be bad if more software asked for citations.

Let us make one thing abundantly clear: The reason for the citing
notice in GNU Parallel is _funding_ - not prestige of being cited in
an academic journal, as you hint. It has never been a secret and has
been explained from the start:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.html

If you find another way to pay my salary, so I can continue to devote
time to develop GNU Parallel, then I will have no objections to
removing the notice. So please help solve that problem. Not only will
it please me, but if you find a general solution, many other free
software developers will thank you for it.

Focusing on how we can get more free software funded is constructive.
Focusing on how we can remove funding for existing free software is
not.

It is unclear to me why you think that funding through citations
suddenly will be the prevailing way of funding, if Debian affirms GNU
Parallel's version of an 'OK. Do not show this again'-message (just
like the GUI-messages this message can be silenced in less than 10
seconds, and if you do not save more than 10 seconds by using GNU
Parallel, maybe you should not be using it anyway).

First of all, I think that is unrealistic that this sudden change will
happen (most other software is financed in different ways). But even
if it _did_ happen, then you would be free to use different tools (or
develop your own), if you prefer not to cite.

To me your email could be summarized as: "I do not want to help fund
the development, but I want to reap all the benefits - even if that
means killing the long term development."

To me it seems it is you whom Nadia Eghbal addresses in
https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer:

"Is it alright to compromise, or even deliberately ignore, the
happiness of maintainers so we that can enjoy free and open source
software?"


== Citation notice FAQ ==

> Why does GNU Parallel show a citation notice?

GNU Parallel is indirectly funded through citations. It is therefore
important for the long term survival of GNU Parallel that it is cited.
The citation notice makes users aware of this.

See also: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.html


> Is the citation notice compatible with GPLv3?

Yes. The wording has been cleared by Richard M. Stallman to be
compatible with GPLv3. This is because the citation notice is not part
of the license, but part of academic tradition.

Therefore the notice is not adding a term that would require citation
as mentioned on:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation


> Do automated scripts break if the notice is not silenced?

No. Not a single time has that happened. This is due to the notice
only being printed, if the output is to the screen - not if the output
is to a file or a pipe.


> How do I silence the citation notice?

Run this once:

parallel --citation

It takes less than 10 seconds to do and is thus comparable to an 'OK.
Do not show this again'-dialog box seen in Firefox and similar
programs.

It is even optionally to run this, as GNU Parallel will work without
having 'parallel --citation' run first (in other words it is not
comparable to a clickwrap license, that must be accepted before the
program will run). However, not running it does not change that
academic tradition requires you to cite in scientific articles. That
tradition requires you to cite even if there had been no notice.


> I do not write scientific articles. Does the notice apply to me?

No. The notice only applies if you write scientific articles.


> What shows citing software is an academic tradition?

These links suggest: Yes, you should cite software, and if the author
suggests a way of citing, use that.

* https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html
* https://libguides.mit.edu/c.php?g=551454&p=3900280
* https://www.software.ac.uk/how-cite-software
* https://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/APA6th/software
* https://libguides.rgu.ac.uk/c.php?g=380081&p=2983956
* https://journals.aas.org/policy-statement-on-software/
* https://guides.lib.monash.edu/c.php?g=219786&p=1454293
* https://www.maxqda.com/how-to-cite-maxqda

If you feel the benefit from using GNU Parallel is too small to
warrant a citation, then prove that by simply using another tool. If
you replace your usage of GNU Parallel with another tool, you
obviously do not have to cite GNU Parallel. If it is too much work
replacing the usage of GNU Parallel, then it is a good indication that
the benefit is big enough to warrant a citation.


> Do other software show how to cite?

Here are other examples of software showing how to cite. Some of these
refer to peer-reviewed articles - others do not:

* https://www.scipy.org/citing.html
* https://octave.org/doc/interpreter/Citing-Octave-in-Publications.html
(Octave has citation for individual packages, too)
* https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-May/161481.html
* https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/utils/html/citation.html
(R has citation for individual packages, too)
* http://www.partek.com/citing-partek-software-in-a-publication/
* http://www.fluortools.com/misc/cite
* https://www.maxqda.com/how-to-cite-maxqda
* https://www.open-mpi.org/papers/
* https://www.tensorflow.org/about/bib
* http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/praat.html


> I do not like the notice. Can I fork GNU Parallel and remove it?

Yes. GNU Parallel is released under GNU GPLv3 and thus you are allowed
to fork the code. But you have to make sure that your forked version
cannot be confused with the original, so for one thing you cannot call
it anything similar to GNU Parallel as that would cause confusion
between your forked version and the original. This is also why we have
CentOS (and not RedHat Free), and IceCat (and not Firefox Free). This
is also covered in DFSG ("The license may require derived works to
carry a different name or version number from the original software").

This principle has even been tested in court:
http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/GERMANYGeneralPublicLicenseDoesNotPermitUseofThird-PartyTrademarksforAdvertisingModifiedVersionsofOpen-SourceSoftware.aspx
https://www.admody.com/urteilsdatenbank/cafe6fdaeed3/OLG-Duesseldorf_Urteil_vom_28-September-2010_Az_I-20-U-41-09


> How important is the notice for the survival of GNU Parallel?

Citations is what indirectly funds maintaining GNU Parallel. Before
the citation notice was implemented hardly anyone cited GNU Parallel,
and that would not have been sustainable in the long term. Funding
development aligns well with "We will give back to the free software
community" and "To accelerate innovation and underpin operations".

Therefore it is more important to keep the notice than to be included
in different distributions. Specifically, it will be preferable to be
moved from Debian main to Debian non-free over having the notice
removed (and staying in main).

In other words: It is preferable having fewer users, who all know they
should cite, over having many users, who do not know they should cite.

If the goal had been to get more users, then the license would have
been public domain.

This is because a long term survival with funding is more important
than short term gains in popularity that can be achieved by being
distributed as part of a distribution.


> Is there another way I can get rid of the notice?

Yes. Find a way to finance future development of GNU Parallel. If you
pay me a normal salary, I will be happy to remove the citation notice.


> I do not think it is fair having to cite

If the "price" of having to cite is too high for you, then you should
use another tool. If you do not want to help fund GNU Parallel, then
you will not be a happy GNU Parallel user, and thus you using another
tool is the best solutions for all parties. Here is a list of
alternatives to help you choose:
https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_alternatives.html


> I do not think it is fair having to spend 10 seconds on running 'parallel --citation'

If the "price" of running 'parallel --citation' one single time after
installing GNU Parallel is too high, then you do not have to do it.
You only need to do that if you do not want to see the citation
notice.


> I do not think it is fair having to see the citation notice every time GNU Parallel runs

You do not have to. Spend 10 seconds on running 'parallel --citation'
and the notice is silenced. This is similar to clicking 'OK. Do not
show this again' in a dialog box seen in Firefox and similar programs.

If GNU Parallel does not save you more than 10 seconds, then you
should probably not be using it anyway.


> I do not want my users see the citation notice and I do not want to finance the development

If you care so little about GNU Parallel that you do not want to help
finance development, then you should consider if GNU Parallel is
really the right tool for you.

It is, however, doable (e.g. by forking and changing the code). But
you will be going against the wishes of the author, because you make
it harder to make a living, thus you will be making it harder to
justify producing more free software. If you like GNU Parallel and
want to see it maintained in the future, then this is not the way to
go.

Maybe it is you Nadia Eghbal addresses in
https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer:

"Is it alright to compromise, or even deliberately ignore, the
happiness of maintainers so we that can enjoy free and open source
software?"


/Ole

Ian Turner

unread,
Aug 27, 2021, 7:00:04 PMAug 27
to
Hi Andreas and other maintainers,

It appears that upload 20210322+ds-1 for package parallel reverts the
change made in NMU upload 20161222-1.1. Is that intentional?

Ian Turner

Andreas Tille

unread,
Aug 28, 2021, 7:50:03 AMAug 28
to
I admit it is not intentional and was rather a regression. When trying
to update the patch I stumbled upon a change in the code:

# Before changing this line, please read
# https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
# https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt

I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet. I'm fine
with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we
should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text.

Kind regards

Andreas.

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel/-/commit/981b5c5b323943faf4ad5bfff63dff227fa901d9

--
http://fam-tille.de

Ian Turner

unread,
Aug 28, 2021, 12:20:03 PMAug 28
to
On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet. I'm fine
> with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we
> should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text.

My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously
judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed.

Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision,
though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best
to remove it. I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the
contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project.

One other thing — I note that the fix to 905674 did not remove these
command line parameters from the manpage, so if you do decide to remove
the citation notice, I would suggest removing it there as well. I am
happy to submit a patch if that would be helpful.

Regards,

Ian Turner

Andreas Tille

unread,
Aug 28, 2021, 1:10:03 PMAug 28
to
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously
> judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed.
>
> Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision,
> though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best to
> remove it. I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the
> contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project.

I'm also not convinced absolutely. I was just mentioning that upstream
seems to have noticed our (may be other distributions) patch and added
extra comments. So I felt it appropriate to trigger a short discussion
about it.

> One other thing — I note that the fix to 905674 did not remove these command
> line parameters from the manpage, so if you do decide to remove the citation
> notice, I would suggest removing it there as well. I am happy to submit a
> patch if that would be helpful.

Patches are always welcome.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

Ian Turner

unread,
Aug 28, 2021, 2:00:03 PMAug 28
to
Thanks Andreas.

On 8/28/21 12:57 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Patches are always welcome.

Attached is a patch that removes all mentions of the --bibtex or
--citation parameters, or demands for 10000 EUR, throughout the
codebase. It includes the patch you already committed, so it should
serve as a drop-in replacement.

I would also like to say to Ole that I hope you can understand that this
is not personal in any way.

Ian

remove-citation-and-10000-eur.patch

Andreas Tille

unread,
Aug 28, 2021, 3:50:03 PMAug 28
to
Thanks for the patch. I'll upload this soon.
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.dash b/src/env_parallel.dash
> index 0674942..878edc6 100755
> --- a/src/env_parallel.dash
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.dash
> @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ _parset_main() {
> echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel"
> echo
> echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication"
> - echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
> + echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
> echo
> return 255
> fi
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.ksh b/src/env_parallel.ksh
> index 73dcf8b..746c989 100755
> --- a/src/env_parallel.ksh
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.ksh
> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ _parset_main() {
> echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel"
> echo
> echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication"
> - echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
> + echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
> echo
> return 255
> fi
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.pod b/src/env_parallel.pod
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index 57c7d54..d67c7f4
> --- a/src/env_parallel.pod
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.pod
> @@ -800,9 +800,6 @@ When using GNU B<env_parallel> for a publication please cite:
> O. Tange (2018): GNU Parallel 2018, March 2018, ISBN 9781387509881,
> DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1146014.
>
> -This helps funding further development; and it won't cost you a cent.
> -If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
> -
> Copyright (C) 2007-10-18 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
>
> Copyright (C) 2008-2010 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.sh b/src/env_parallel.sh
> index 0f584ba..ba0e89d 100755
> --- a/src/env_parallel.sh
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.sh
> @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ _parset_main() {
> echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel"
> echo
> echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication"
> - echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
> + echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
> echo
> return 255
> fi
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.zsh b/src/env_parallel.zsh
> index 54001c6..a0592c9 100755
> --- a/src/env_parallel.zsh
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.zsh
> @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ _parset_main() {
> echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel"
> echo
> echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication"
> - echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
> + echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
> echo
> return 255
> fi
> diff --git a/src/parallel b/src/parallel
> index d2f0396..d8288ed 100755
> --- a/src/parallel
> +++ b/src/parallel
> @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ sub options_hash() {
> - "bibtex|citation" => \$opt::citation,
> +# "bibtex|citation" => \$opt::citation,
> "wc|willcite|will-cite|nn|nonotice|no-notice" => \$opt::willcite,
> # Termination and retries
> "halt-on-error|halt=s" => \$opt::halt,
> @@ -1764,10 +1764,10 @@ sub parse_options(@) {
> - if(defined $opt::citation) {
> - citation(\@argv_before,\@ARGV);
> - wait_and_exit(0);
> - }
> +# if(defined $opt::citation) {
> +# citation(\@argv_before,\@ARGV);
> +# wait_and_exit(0);
> +# }
> # no-* overrides *
> if($opt::nokeeporder) { $opt::keeporder = undef; }
>
> @@ -2117,7 +2117,7 @@ sub parse_options(@) {
> #
> # If you want GNU Parallel to be maintained in the future you
> # should keep this line.
> - citation_notice();
> +# citation_notice();
> # Seriously: _YOU_ will be harming free software by removing the
> # notice. _YOU_ make it harder to justify spending time developing
> # it. If you *do* remove the line, please email
> @@ -5058,9 +5058,9 @@ sub usage() {
> - "This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.",
> - "If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.",
> - "",
> +# "This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.",
> +# "If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.",
> +# "",
> "",);
> }
>
> @@ -5187,7 +5187,7 @@ sub version() {
> "",
> "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/${Global::progname}\n",
> "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication",
> - "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'.\n",
> + "please cite as described in the manpage.\n",
> );
> }
>
> diff --git a/src/parallel.pod b/src/parallel.pod
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index 7a8a9c2..e84a189
> --- a/src/parallel.pod
> +++ b/src/parallel.pod
> @@ -576,33 +576,6 @@ See also: B<--fg>, B<man sem>.
>
> Implies B<--semaphore>.
>
> -
> -=item B<--bibtex>
> -
> -=item B<--citation>
> -
> -Print the citation notice and BibTeX entry for GNU B<parallel>,
> -silence citation notice for all future runs, and exit. It will not run
> -any commands.
> -
> -If it is impossible for you to run B<--citation> you can instead use
> -B<--will-cite>, which will run commands, but which will only silence
> -the citation notice for this single run.
> -
> -If you use B<--will-cite> in scripts to be run by others you are
> -making it harder for others to see the citation notice. The
> -development of GNU B<parallel> is indirectly financed through
> -citations, so if your users do not know they should cite then you are
> -making it harder to finance development. However, if you pay 10000
> -EUR, you have done your part to finance future development and should
> -feel free to use B<--will-cite> in scripts.
> -
> -If you do not want to help financing future development by letting
> -other users see the citation notice or by paying, then please use
> -another tool instead of GNU B<parallel>. You can find some of the
> -alternatives in B<man parallel_alternatives>.
> -
> -
> =item B<--block> I<size>
>
> =item B<--block-size> I<size>
> @@ -5562,9 +5535,6 @@ When using GNU B<parallel> for a publication please cite:
> O. Tange (2011): GNU Parallel - The Command-Line Power Tool, ;login:
> The USENIX Magazine, February 2011:42-47.
>
> -This helps funding further development; and it won't cost you a cent.
> -If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
> -
> Copyright (C) 2007-10-18 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
>
> Copyright (C) 2008-2010 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
> diff --git a/src/parallel_alternatives.pod b/src/parallel_alternatives.pod
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index f9a0dfd..67effb3
> --- a/src/parallel_alternatives.pod
> +++ b/src/parallel_alternatives.pod
> @@ -3613,9 +3613,6 @@ When using GNU B<parallel> for a publication please cite:
> O. Tange (2011): GNU Parallel - The Command-Line Power Tool, ;login:
> The USENIX Magazine, February 2011:42-47.
>
> -This helps funding further development; and it won't cost you a cent.
> -If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
> -
> Copyright (C) 2007-10-18 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
>
> Copyright (C) 2008-2010 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
> diff --git a/src/parallel_design.pod b/src/parallel_design.pod
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index 94be7f4..32e9a70
> --- a/src/parallel_design.pod
> +++ b/src/parallel_design.pod
> @@ -1340,18 +1340,6 @@ and if it works, you should post it on the email list. Ideas that will
> cost work and which have not been tested are, however, unlikely to be
> prioritized.
>
> -Running B<parallel --citation> one single time takes less than 10
> -seconds, and will silence the citation notice for future runs. This is
> -comparable to graphical tools where you have to click a checkbox
> -saying "Do not show this again". But if that is too much trouble for
> -you, why not use one of the alternatives instead? See a list in:
> -B<man parallel_alternatives>.
> -
> -As the request for citation is not a legal requirement this is
> -acceptable under GPLv3 and cleared with Richard M. Stallman
> -himself. Thus it does not fall under this:
> -https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation
> -
>
> =head1 Ideas for new design
>
> diff --git a/src/parallel_tutorial.pod b/src/parallel_tutorial.pod
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index 210084d..9408e52
> --- a/src/parallel_tutorial.pod
> +++ b/src/parallel_tutorial.pod
> @@ -2993,9 +2993,6 @@ Output:
>
> O. Tange (2011): GNU Parallel - The Command-Line Power Tool,
> ;login: The USENIX Magazine, February 2011:42-47.
> -
> - This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.
> - If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
>
> When asking for help, always report the full output of this:
>
> @@ -3013,7 +3010,7 @@ Output:
> Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel
>
> When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication
> - please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'.
> + please cite as described in the manpage.
>
> In scripts B<--minversion> can be used to ensure the user has at least
> this version:
> @@ -3026,38 +3023,6 @@ Output:
> 20160322
> Your version is at least 20130722.
>
> -If you are using GNU B<parallel> for research the BibTeX citation can be
> -generated using B<--citation>:
> -
> - parallel --citation
> -
> -Output:
> -
> - Academic tradition requires you to cite works you base your article on.
> - When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication
> - please cite:
> -
> - @article{Tange2011a,
> - title = {GNU Parallel - The Command-Line Power Tool},
> - author = {O. Tange},
> - address = {Frederiksberg, Denmark},
> - journal = {;login: The USENIX Magazine},
> - month = {Feb},
> - number = {1},
> - volume = {36},
> - url = {https://www.gnu.org/s/parallel},
> - year = {2011},
> - pages = {42-47},
> - doi = {10.5281/zenodo.16303}
> - }
> -
> - (Feel free to use \nocite{Tange2011a})
> -
> - This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.
> - If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
> -
> - If you send a copy of your published article to ta...@gnu.org, it will be
> - mentioned in the release notes of next version of GNU Parallel.
>
> With B<--max-line-length-allowed> GNU B<parallel> will report the maximal
> size of the command line:
> @@ -3150,7 +3115,7 @@ If you use GNU B<parallel> for research:
>
> =item *
>
> -Please cite GNU B<parallel> in you publications (use B<--citation>)
> +Please cite GNU B<parallel> in you publications
>
> =back
>
> diff --git a/src/parset.pod b/src/parset.pod
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index ad9621e..48e20d9
> --- a/src/parset.pod
> +++ b/src/parset.pod
> @@ -195,9 +195,6 @@ When using GNU B<parallel> for a publication please cite:
> O. Tange (2011): GNU Parallel - The Command-Line Power Tool, ;login:
> The USENIX Magazine, February 2011:42-47.
>
> -This helps funding further development; and it won't cost you a cent.
> -If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
> -
> Copyright (C) 2007-10-18 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
>
> Copyright (C) 2008-2010 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
> diff --git a/src/parsort b/src/parsort
> index 85c2289..a82e7a3 100755
> --- a/src/parsort
> +++ b/src/parsort
> @@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ sub version() {
> "",
> "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/${Global::progname}\n",
> "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication",
> - "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'.\n",
> + "please cite as described in the manpage.\n",
> );
> }
>
> diff --git a/src/sem b/src/sem
> index d2f0396..13af30e 100755
> --- a/src/sem
> +++ b/src/sem
> @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ sub options_hash() {
> - "bibtex|citation" => \$opt::citation,
> + # "bibtex|citation" => \$opt::citation,
> "wc|willcite|will-cite|nn|nonotice|no-notice" => \$opt::willcite,
> # Termination and retries
> "halt-on-error|halt=s" => \$opt::halt,
> @@ -1764,10 +1764,10 @@ sub parse_options(@) {
> - if(defined $opt::citation) {
> - citation(\@argv_before,\@ARGV);
> - wait_and_exit(0);
> - }
> + # if(defined $opt::citation) {
> + # citation(\@argv_before,\@ARGV);
> + # wait_and_exit(0);
> + # }
> # no-* overrides *
> if($opt::nokeeporder) { $opt::keeporder = undef; }
>
> @@ -2117,7 +2117,7 @@ sub parse_options(@) {
> #
> # If you want GNU Parallel to be maintained in the future you
> # should keep this line.
> - citation_notice();
> + # citation_notice();
> # Seriously: _YOU_ will be harming free software by removing the
> # notice. _YOU_ make it harder to justify spending time developing
> # it. If you *do* remove the line, please email
> @@ -5058,8 +5058,8 @@ sub usage() {
> - "This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.",
> - "If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.",
> + # "This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.",
> + # "If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.",
> "",
> "",);
> }
> @@ -5187,7 +5187,7 @@ sub version() {
> "",
> "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/${Global::progname}\n",
> "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication",
> - "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'.\n",
> + "please cite as described in the manpage.\n",
> );
> }
>


--
http://fam-tille.de

Étienne Mollier

unread,
Aug 28, 2021, 4:30:04 PMAug 28
to
Good day,

Andreas Tille, on 2021-08-28:
> Thanks for the patch. I'll upload this soon.

I noticed a CITATIONS file at the root of the source code, which
might contain information suitable for debian/upstream/metadata.
I suppose it would be fair to reference Ole's work appropriately
as we do for the other publications.

Hope this helps, :)
--
Étienne Mollier <emol...@emlwks999.eu>
Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.
signature.asc

Andreas Tille

unread,
Aug 28, 2021, 4:40:03 PMAug 28
to
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 10:00:12PM +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote:
> Andreas Tille, on 2021-08-28:
> > Thanks for the patch. I'll upload this soon.
>
> I noticed a CITATIONS file at the root of the source code, which
> might contain information suitable for debian/upstream/metadata.
> I suppose it would be fair to reference Ole's work appropriately
> as we do for the other publications.
>
> Hope this helps, :)

Thanks for the good hint - done.

Ole Tange

unread,
Aug 30, 2021, 2:20:04 AMAug 30
to
Ian Turner <vec...@vectro.org> wrote:
> On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet. I'm fine
>>with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we
>>should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text.
>
> My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously
> judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed.
> Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision,
> though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best to
> remove it.

The only license that gives you the right to change the source code is GPLv3.

#905674 and #915541 refer to the wording of version 20141022. The
current wording (20210722) has been cleared by Richard M. Stallman to
be compatible with GPLv3. This is because the citation notice is not
part of the license, but part of academic tradition (this was not
clear in version 20141022).

DFSG mentions "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of
the program in a specific field of endeavor", and since the academic
tradition is not part of the license and since the tradition does not
"restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of
endeavor", it is hard to see, how you would argue the wording of
version 20210722 does not adhere to DFSG (the wording in 20141022 was
different, and it is this old wording that is the background for
#905674 and referred in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915541#5).

If your stance is based on reading #905674 I will encourage you to
read the current wording, and argue how the current wording does not
adhere to DFSG.

If you disagree with Richard M. Stallman's interpretation of GPLv3 and
feel the citation notice does not adhere to GPLv3, you should treat
the software as if it is not available under GPLv3. And since GPLv3 is
the only thing that would give you the right to change it, you would
not be allowed to change the software.

In other words: If you want to remove the citation notice to make the
software compliant with your interpretation of GPLv3, you first have
to accept that the software is already compliant with GPLv3, because
nothing else gives you the right to change it. And if you accept this,
you do not need to change it to make it compliant.


Citations are what indirectly fund maintaining GNU Parallel (for
details see: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt).
Before the citation notice was implemented hardly anyone cited GNU
Parallel, and that would not have been sustainable in the long term.

Therefore it is more important to keep the notice than to be included
in different distributions. Specifically, it will be preferable to be
moved from Debian main to Debian non-free over having the notice
removed (and staying in main).

In other words: It is preferable having fewer users, who all know they
should cite, over having many users, who do not know they should cite.

This is because long-term survival with funding is more important than
short-term gains in popularity that can be achieved by being
distributed as part of a distribution.

If the goal had been to get more users, then the license would have
been public domain.


By removing the citation notice you are knowingly making it harder for
me to justify spending time on developing GNU Parallel, and sending a
signal to future developers that Debian does not care about their long
term survival - only short term benefits to the project. I hope we can
agree we want more free software in the future - not less.

> I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the
> contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project.

If the revised wording (from version 20141022 to version 20210722)
does not change your opinion, I feel the only compromise that is
acceptable to all the active parties is to keep the citation notice
even if this means moving the software from main to non-free.


/Ole

Andreas Tille

unread,
Aug 30, 2021, 2:30:03 AMAug 30
to
Hi,

since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal
list for advise.

Kind regards

Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de

Tobias Frost

unread,
Aug 30, 2021, 6:40:03 AMAug 30
to
Hi Andreas,

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:25:29AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal
> list for advise.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>


(usual disclaimer: IANAL. This below is only are few cents and thought on the
matter. Warning, personal opinions incoming!)

I don't think we've got a legal/license problem here... For sure (and upstream
author seems to ACK this, it seems we'd be allowed to have change as we
see fit.

I think this a "social" type problem, possiblry the upstream author
not really understanding what "GNU" and the Free Software Movements stands for?
Or ignoring the 4 Freedoms for own benefit? I had this impression when I read
this from the FAQ [1]:

> If the goal had been to get more users, then the license would have
> been public domain.

The FAQ itself seems to be crafted to somehow "disguise" that the citing is
optional. As a non-native English speaker, after reading the FAQ, I would have
though that this citing is indeed an requirement, not a request. It seems to
use morailty obligations as a base argument.

[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt

(For documentation, upstream says in #915541#72 that it is thought to be optional)

Is the FSF aware that upstream had registered "GNU PARALLEL" as trademark, on
his name? (Though, it is listed as "abandoned", whatever this means. I guess
it is not valid anymore.) Is upstream aware that "GNU" is a registered
trademark?

I think a pledge to cite is OK, but _requiring_ to run the programm with
certain command line options to so is in my books a click-wrap license, even if
the authors does claim otherwise, eg. in its FAQs: You need to do _some thing
explicitly_ that somehow makes you making a promise, maybe even a contract. So
it is natual, that someonoe is going to patch that out sooner or later -- if only
to avoid the annoyance As said earlier, there is nothing in the license that
require us to keep the pledge, so upstream would be better off for their own
interest if the pledge is formulated in a way that noone actually want to go the
extra mail to remove the pledge.

Maybe carrying such a patch would NOT establish a fork (-- upstream has a
Rename (pledge / requirement) on forks in their FAQ; This could or could not
end up as effecitvly part of the license. If it is, sure, DFSG allows a
different name requirement, but it would certaintly be part of weight on the
overall judgment wether we should have the software in Debian at all.
However, source package name is "parallel" "GNU parallel", so might we be
already ship it renamed... (Parallel alone would IMHO not be trademarkable, as
it is a common word and the parallel existed as tool already before GNU
parallel...) and removing GNU Parallel from the rest can be easily done, if
upstream prefers that.

In my experience its not good to do against the wish of an upstream author.
That does not mean that we should follow his request either.

My 2 cents: Possibly this GNU parallel should not be part of Debian, due to the
bitter taste this discussion leaves, but it has reverse dependcies, so not
really an option.

I dont think that shipping the software in non-free would service Debian and its
users as well: We'd still have to track down all reverse (build-) depdencies (if
and worst case put them to contrib, if patching is not possible.

So I guess I'd just patch and if upstream complains rename the project from
"GNU parallel" to just "parallel". Possibly somewhere is a fork already, didnt
check. Then switching to this fork would be an option as well.

Regarding the arguments upstream brings about the DFSG. Instead of rebuting them
individually let me just quote some sentences of DSFG FAQ:

> "The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to articulate our
> criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means that if you think you've
> found a loophole in the DFSG then you don't quite understand how this works."
I dont think that is an acceptable "compromise to all the active parties", as
it seems to leave out the interests of our users. #884793.

IMHO a compromise could be to the citation "request" in the documentation,
like the example given in the DFSG FAQ. Remove the urge that people want
to patch something out and it won't.

</my2cents>

-
tobi

Felix Lechner

unread,
Aug 30, 2021, 9:20:04 AMAug 30
to
Hi,

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> >
> > If you want to remove the citation notice ...
> > nothing else gives you the right to change it.

Can we ship GNU Parallel with a small wrapper that removes the notice?
Being text-based, it would not modify the software at all. I am
thinking about something like:

$ echo 'NOTICE: Wanted output.' | perl -pe '{ s/^NOTICE:\s*(.*)/$1/ }'
Wanted output.

> Is the FSF aware that upstream had registered "GNU PARALLEL" as trademark, on
> his name? (Though, it is listed as "abandoned", whatever this means. I guess
> it is not valid anymore.) Is upstream aware that "GNU" is a registered
> trademark?

A trademark does not have to be registered in order to be enforceable,
although it makes it easier. Many trademarks are not registered. The
USPTO application for "GNU Parallel" was filed on April 7, 2018 and
abandoned on February 4, 2019. I did not check Danish, EU or WIPO or
US state records.

I find it hard to believe the FSF would agree to the issuance. The
term "GNU" is their word mark (#f4125065) for goods and services in
the international categories 9 ("electronic apparatus and software")
and 16 ("documentation and manuals"). FSF may be able to exercise
additional pressure to prohibit "GNU Parallel" from using the word
"GNU".

Either way, the trademark threat in GNU Parallel's documentation is
explicit and refers to past legal cases: "This principle has even been
tested in court". [1] The author's aggressive stance, as evidenced by
a relatively recent trademark filing, should lead us to proceed with
extreme caution.

(I am one of Debian's trademark delegates, but have no trademark or
legal training. Please consult a competent person before relying on
anything in this message.)

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt

Andreas Tille

unread,
Aug 30, 2021, 10:00:03 AMAug 30
to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 06:18:20AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
>
> Can we ship GNU Parallel with a small wrapper that removes the notice?
> Being text-based, it would not modify the software at all. I am
> thinking about something like:
>
> $ echo 'NOTICE: Wanted output.' | perl -pe '{ s/^NOTICE:\s*(.*)/$1/ }'
> Wanted output.

I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality:
Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so.

I did not implemented this since from a user point of view the visible
effect is the same as the patch and the upstream author is probably
similarly (un)happy about it as the patch.

Ole Tange

unread,
Aug 30, 2021, 1:50:04 PMAug 30
to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:38 PM Andreas Tille <and...@fam-tille.de> wrote:
:
> I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality:
> Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so.

If you mean a wrapper similar to this, then that would be a compromise
I can live with:

if [ -t 2 -a ! -e "$HOME/.citation-run" ] ; then
# Only run if stderr is a terminal (to avoid breaking scripts)
parallel.real --citation
touch "$HOME/.citation-run"
fi
parallel.real "$@"

By testing if stderr is redirected this should avoid breaking scripts
(e.g. cron jobs or similar).

To me it would feel similar to a dialog box, where you have to click
"Don't show this again" to continue the first time. This is not that
uncommon in graphical tools, so there is some precedence for this.

I find it less than optimal, but if we can find common ground on that,
it would be a compromise I can live with.


/Ole

Tobias Frost

unread,
Aug 31, 2021, 2:50:04 AMAug 31
to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:38 PM Andreas Tille <and...@fam-tille.de> wrote:
> :
> > I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality:
> > Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so.
>
> If you mean a wrapper similar to this, then that would be a compromise
> I can live with:
>
> if [ -t 2 -a ! -e "$HOME/.citation-run" ] ; then
> # Only run if stderr is a terminal (to avoid breaking scripts)
> parallel.real --citation
> touch "$HOME/.citation-run"
> fi
> parallel.real "$@"

Thats fragil.
There is no guarantee that a (system) user has $HOME that it is writable.




(Regardin what to do in Debian, maybe its time to resurrect #597050?)

--
tobi

Tobias Frost

unread,
Aug 31, 2021, 3:00:05 AMAug 31
to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> To me it would feel similar to a dialog box, where you have to click
> "Don't show this again" to continue the first time. This is not that
> uncommon in graphical tools, so there is some precedence for this.

as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's.

(And it is a difference if it is a "Tip of the Day" dialog on a supposed-to-be-used-with the GUI
or a license/citation-nagger which is usually run in a script.
If you mean those. At least the former provides some advantage to the user, the
latter not, just as an starter.)

> I find it less than optimal, but if we can find common ground on that,
> it would be a compromise I can live with.

Hows about only print a decently worded message asking nicely to cite, without the
nagging to stdout if the user passes --help?

>
> /Ole
>

Ole Tange

unread,
Aug 31, 2021, 2:40:04 PMAug 31
to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:26 AM Andreas Tille <and...@an3as.eu> wrote:
>
> since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal
> list for advise.

In disagreements it often helps to first agree on what the parties
disagree on. That way you can put aside the parts you agree on. Maybe
this can also help here.

In the text below The Notice refers to the citation notice in GNU
Parallel version 20210722.

Do you believe the original source code of version 20210722 is GPLv3
compliant in your interpretation of the GPLv3? If no: What license (if
any) would give you the right to change the software?

Do you believe The Notice conflicts with the 4 freedoms of Free
Software? If so: please explain how.

Do you believe The Notice conflicts with the DFSG? If so: please explain how.

Do you believe The Notice breaks scripts - unattended or not? If so:
Provide a minimal working example that shows a script actually
breaking (don't assume it will break, instead show it actually
breaks).

Do you believe you can change the source code as much as you want and
still call it GNU Parallel? Do you believe you can make significant
changes and still call it GNU Parallel?

Are you aware that in academia it is tradition to cite research you build upon?

Are you aware citations are an important factor for some researchers
to have their contract extended?

Are you aware that GNU Parallel earlier tried only to have the
citation notice in the documentation, but researchers simply did not
read this, and thus forgot to cite - not because they did not want to
cite, but because they simply were not aware?

Are you aware there are plenty of alternatives, if you dislike GNU
Parallel (man parallel_alternatives)?


/Ole

Sam Hartman

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 10:50:03 AMSep 3
to
>>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Frost <to...@debian.org> writes:

Tobias> as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's.
By this dxo you mean

1) clip wraps are incompatible with the DFSG? (I agree only if
something in the license prevents you from removing them)

2) Click wraps are a no-go in something you maintain? (okay, sure,
sounds good)

3) Click wraps are incompatible with some written Debian policy or
rules? (I disagree)

4) A lot of Debian maintainers might choose to remove click wraps or not
package software with them (I agree)

Tobias Frost

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 11:00:03 AMSep 3
to
1, 2 and 4 ;-)

But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU parallel
would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though.
(my 2 cents...)

--
tobi

Felix Lechner

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 11:10:04 AMSep 3
to
Hi,

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost <to...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU parallel
> would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
> The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though.

Maybe the debconf system can provide a choice? The default could be
consistent with Debian's standards.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Ole Tange

unread,
Sep 6, 2021, 3:20:03 PMSep 6
to
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:05 PM Felix Lechner <felix....@lease-up.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost <to...@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU parallel
> > would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
> > The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though.

Maybe it would help if the consequences were explained to them:

* Do you want the software with no citation notice and risk that the
maintainer will step down because he cannot afford spending time on it
- thus getting less free software in the long run?
* Or do you want to spend the 10 seconds it takes to silence the
notice if you don't want to see it?

I think more users would be more sad if the software was no longer
maintained. But you will no doubt get a few vocal exceptions.

But maybe there exists a third option.

> Maybe the debconf system can provide a choice? The default could be
> consistent with Debian's standards.

Can we agree that a click-wrap requires the user to actively do
something (e.g. clicking) before he can use the software? If so: The
citation notice is not a click-wrap, because the GNU Parallel will run
just fine without silencing the notice. It doesn't even break scripts.

It is still not clear to me how the default behaviour of the current
version of GNU Parallel conflicts with Debian's standards: The
citation notice provides you with useful information if you are a
researcher who publishes; it does not limit who can use the software.
If you believe it conflicts with Debian's standards, point to the
specific paragraph. (I accept that wording in version 20141022 was
unclear - and I can see how you could argue that back then).

The ultimate goal has never been to have a license notice. The goal is
to make it possible for me to spend time developing free software. In
practice this means either pay my salary or have GNU Parallel cited,
so it is easier for me to get a job that pays my salary.

It is unlikely that the Debian project will provide my salary, so let
us focus on the second part.

Before the license notice was implemented researchers forgot to cite
GNU Parallel; not because they did not want to honor the tradition,
but simply because they forgot. The citation notice changed this for
the better.

If there is a different way that will ensure researchers will not
forget, it would be acceptable to me.

I am open to (but not convinced) that a debconf choice would
accomplish this. If you believe it will, please elaborate how.


/Ole

Lucas Nussbaum

unread,
Sep 7, 2021, 5:40:04 AMSep 7
to
On 06/09/21 at 20:56 +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:05 PM Felix Lechner <felix....@lease-up.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost <to...@debian.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU parallel
> > > would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
> > > The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though.
>
> Maybe it would help if the consequences were explained to them:
>
> * Do you want the software with no citation notice and risk that the
> maintainer will step down because he cannot afford spending time on it
> - thus getting less free software in the long run?
> * Or do you want to spend the 10 seconds it takes to silence the
> notice if you don't want to see it?
>
> The ultimate goal has never been to have a license notice. The goal is
> to make it possible for me to spend time developing free software. In
> practice this means either pay my salary or have GNU Parallel cited,
> so it is easier for me to get a job that pays my salary.
>
> It is unlikely that the Debian project will provide my salary, so let
> us focus on the second part.
>
> Before the license notice was implemented researchers forgot to cite
> GNU Parallel; not because they did not want to honor the tradition,
> but simply because they forgot. The citation notice changed this for
> the better.
>
> If there is a different way that will ensure researchers will not
> forget, it would be acceptable to me.

It is common for scientific tools or research infrastructures to provide
a "how to cite" section in their documentation. This is not a problem:
when researchers freely determine that they should cite something (for
example to provide the necessary context for their work) it's a good
idea to help them do that. See for example
https://www.open-mpi.org/papers/

Alternatively, infrastructures (and funding organizations) often require
an acknowledgement in publications. See for example
https://prace-ri.eu/hpc-access/project-access/project-access-information-for-awarded-projects/

However GNU parallel goes much further than that, because:
(1) the wording almost requires citation
(2) it does so by providing a version-specific citation, not a generic
one. In the past, it was asking to cite:
O. Tange (2011): GNU Parallel - The Command-Line Power Tool,
;login: The USENIX Magazine, February 2011:42-47.
(This publication attracted 939 citations according to Google Scholar)
But now it asks to cite (in the current development version):

@software{tange_2021_5233953,
author = {Tange, Ole},
title = {GNU Parallel 20210822 ('Kabul')},
month = Aug,
year = 2021,
note = {{GNU Parallel is a general parallelizer to run
multiple serial command line programs in parallel
without changing them.}},
publisher = {Zenodo},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.5233953},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5233953}
}

In a way, this is a way to manipulate metrics such as h-index, by
artificially generating several entries that will collect some
citations.

It is also marginally an abuse of the Zenodo archive: Zenodo provides a
way to track versions for the same software or dataset (see for example the
Versions box in https://zenodo.org/record/5458943). GNU parallel uses
different records, as if each version was different software. (I'm not
sure if this is done by mistake or also serves the purpose of generating
different entries to accumulate citations)

Thus while asking users to acknowledge their use of GNU Parallel in
publications would be totally OK, My personal opinion is that this goes
too far (and might also be ethically questionable). With a wrong eye,
one could even see it as extortion/blackmail.

Lucas

Lucas Nussbaum

unread,
Sep 7, 2021, 5:40:04 AMSep 7
to
I like this idea. It would allow organizations to install GNU parallel
with --will-cite disabled, but instead mention the "please cite" request
in user documentation.

Lucas

Ole Tange

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 4:00:03 PMSep 11
to
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote:
:
> (1) the wording almost requires citation

I take this as you agree that it does not require citation. Also you
do not point to how the default behaviour of the current version of
GNU Parallel conflicts with Debian's standards. If you believe it
conflicts with Debian's standards, please point to the specific
paragraph(s).

> (2) it does so by providing a version-specific citation, not a generic

To me it is more honest to cite the specific version you are actually
using than to cite an article about software that is 10 years old, and
which may not have the features that you depend on. But if the general
consensus is that it is more honest to cite the old article, I will be
perfectly happy with that. If this is what blocks us from reaching a
compromise we can agree on, I will change that in the next version.

> With a wrong eye, one could even see it as extortion/blackmail.

To me extortion/blackmail is when I have done something that I cannot
undo and now I have to pay to keep it a secret.

If you feel it can be seen as extortion/blackmail: Would it not make
it even *more* important that the researchers read the citation notice
*before* using the software?

To me it could never be perceived as neither extortion nor blackmail:

* The user is aware of the citation notice when he starts using GNU Parallel
* There are plenty of alternatives - more than 50 of them are even
mentioned in the documentation
* If you feel GNU Parallel does not contribute enough to warrant a
citation: Prove it by using an alternative

Would it be fair to summarize your critique as you in your personal
opinion do not like the citation notice, but there are neither legal
nor technical reasons for this? In other words: It is a matter of
taste.


/Ole

Sam Hartman

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 11:10:04 PMSep 12
to
>>>>> "Ole" == Ole Tange <ta...@gnu.org> writes:

Ole> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote:
Ole> :
>> (1) the wording almost requires citation

Ole> I take this as you agree that it does not require
Ole> citation. Also you do not point to how the default behaviour of
Ole> the current version of GNU Parallel conflicts with Debian's
Ole> standards. If you believe it conflicts with Debian's standards,
Ole> please point to the specific paragraph(s).

I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works (pointing to specific
paragraphs in a case like this).

My take on this discussion is that there's nothing for debian-legal
here.
This seems clearly within the power Debian grants individual maintainers
to either keep the citation notice or to remove it.

You as upstream can make your decisions after the Debian maintainer
makes theirs. You can do anything from thanking the maintainer
(presumably if they do something you agree with), to raising a trademark
issue (saying you believe Debian needs to change the name), to
reconsidering where you put your time based on what funding you are
receiving.

I don't think that discussing this issue on debian-legal any more serves
any purpose.
There isn't a project level consensus that would override a maintainer
here.
It seems that the maintainer would have sufficient support if they
removed the citation requirement.
However it also seems unlikely that there would be sufficient support to
override a maintainer if they chose to keep the notice.
There were also some debconf or wrapper options discussed, and those
also seem within the latitude we grant our maintainers.

--Sam

Lucas Nussbaum

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 3:10:03 AMSep 13
to
On 11/09/21 at 21:47 +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote:
> :
> > (1) the wording almost requires citation
>
> I take this as you agree that it does not require citation.

[...]

> > With a wrong eye, one could even see it as extortion/blackmail.
>
> To me extortion/blackmail is when I have done something that I cannot
> undo and now I have to pay to keep it a secret.
>
> If you feel it can be seen as extortion/blackmail: Would it not make
> it even *more* important that the researchers read the citation notice
> *before* using the software?
>
> To me it could never be perceived as neither extortion nor blackmail:
>
> * The user is aware of the citation notice when he starts using GNU Parallel
> * There are plenty of alternatives - more than 50 of them are even
> mentioned in the documentation
> * If you feel GNU Parallel does not contribute enough to warrant a
> citation: Prove it by using an alternative
>
> Would it be fair to summarize your critique as you in your personal
> opinion do not like the citation notice, but there are neither legal
> nor technical reasons for this? In other words: It is a matter of
> taste.

For context, what GNU parallel currently displays (in the development
version):

> Academic tradition requires you to cite works you base your article on.
> If you use programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for an article in a
> scientific publication, please cite:
>
> Tange, O. (2021, August 22). GNU Parallel 20210822 ('Kabul').
> Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5233953
>
> This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.
> If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
>
> More about funding GNU Parallel and the citation notice:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
>
> To silence this citation notice: run 'parallel --citation' once.

I disagree with:

> Academic tradition requires you to cite works you base your article on.

This is too strong. I would agree with something less general such as:

> Academic tradition is to cite works one bases their articles on.

If I use Debian as the OS for experiments in an article, there's no
reason to cite it (but there might be good reasons to mention it, as it
could influence reproducibility). Also, citations are generally based on
ideas/concepts. The use of GNU parallel for data processing is most
likely a technicality, unless the paper is about parallel data
processing.

> If you use programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for an article in a
> scientific publication, please cite:
>
> Tange, O. (2021, August 22). GNU Parallel 20210822 ('Kabul').
> Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5233953

That part is OK and fairly standard for scientific software.

> This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.
> If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.

This is misleading. If I don't pay 10000 EUR and don't cite, I should
still feel totally free to use GNU parallel without citing, if GNU
parallel is simply free software under the GNU GPL.

In the FAQ, you also wrote:

> Q: I do not think it is fair having to cite

> R: If the inconvenience of having to cite is too big for you, then you
> should use another tool.

Which is also too strong. it's not an "inconvenience of having to cite",
but an inconvenience of "being gently asked to cite", for example.

I'm actually very surprised that the GNU project allows this in an official
GNU package.

Lucas

Ole Tange

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 4:40:03 PMSep 15
to
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:06 AM Sam Hartman <hart...@debian.org> wrote:
:
> This seems clearly within the power Debian grants individual maintainers
> to either keep the citation notice or to remove it.

I hope my stance is clear:

I want to have an income from developing free software. The citation
notice indirectly gives me that. If you want to take away this without
paying me in a different way, I can only see that as an active hostile
action: You are threatening my livelihood.

Having GNU Parallel moved to non-free or not being distributed by
Debian at all is preferable to having my livelihood attacked.

Remember: I am not the enemy - I am the reason you have something to
package in the first place; so please don't behave like a dick - even
if what you intend to do might technically be legal.

I will be happy to work with anyone who understands this stance and
who wants to work to find a solution that everyone can accept. And
given I just want the citation notice shown to people who write
scientific articles, I really think we can find such a solution.


/Ole

Lucas Nussbaum

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 2:40:03 PMSep 16
to
Hi,

While I was starting to prepare a non-maintainer upload to re-introduce
the patch that removed --will-cite, I realized that the patch was
already re-introduced in version 20210822+ds-2 (see
https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel/-/blob/master/debian/patches/remove-overreaching-citation-request.patch).

As the patch shows, the "please cite" wording is still mentioned in
--help and in the manpage's AUTHOR section (without the 10000 EUR mention).

Also, --help points to the Zenodo for GNU Parallel 20210822 ('Kabul'),
while the manpage points to the USENIX ;login: article, but that
inconsistency is also present in the original version.

So, everything looks fine from my POV.

Lucas

Charles Plessy

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 12:30:03 AMSep 17
to
Le Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 08:37:38PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel/-/blob/master/debian/patches/remove-overreaching-citation-request.patch).

Hi all,

sorry but how likely is it that we will break user scripts with this patch ?

https://github.com/search?q=%22parallel+--citation%22&type=code

I think that it would be better to disable citation checks without
changing availability of the command-line options. (Sorry that I
can not do it myself).

Ole, in Debian we put a lot of effort providing citation information in
a central space, so that one can collect detailed references for
complete pipelines made using our packages.

https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel/-/blob/master/debian/upstream/metadata

But better than a bibliographic DOI, have you consideded registering a
RRID ? (https://www.rrids.org/) (https://scicrunch.org/resources) This
will give scientists an easier way to declare their use of your work in
their publications without going to troubles about space in the
bibliography section, which is limited by many journals.

To the others: do you know a way to list or count the publications that
refer to a given RRID ?

Have a nice day,

Charles

--
Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from work, https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy
Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages