6 ms·

Feel I should mention this -- the confusing and non-clarified (I mailed and asked for clarification, I was told to stop using the software) licence which says i

Feel I should mention this -- the confusing and non-clarified (I mailed and asked for clarification, I was told to stop using the software) licence which says if you use this as an academic, you must cite it or pay. I don't use it for that reason -- this request isn't scalable. I either use xargs, or this reimplementation which had all the stuff I need: https://github.com/mmstick/parallel https://github.com/mmstick/parallel

avar 10y ago
It's licensed under the GPL, where you're not allowed to add any additional terms. The citation notice it spews out is annoying, but can be disabled, and you definitely don't have to include it anywhere. The author just asks for citations because he's in academia, and citation backrubs is how anyone can justify getting time to do anything (including maintaining some software) in academia.
filmor 10y ago
2 questions: - Isn't it common courtesy to cite important tools being used for data processing? Why is this a problem? - Wikipedia says the tool is under GPLv3, so from a bare licence perspective you should be safe to use it for whatever you want, shouldn't it?
- dahart 10y ago
  > Isn't it common courtesy to cite important tools being used for data processing? No, no it's not. It is common to cite previous work, the research you build on top of. It is not common at all to cite tools you use, unless those tools are directly related to your research. If by "important" you mean gnu parallel counts as previous work, then citation is more of a requirement than a courtesy, otherwise citing all the tools you used can be very discourteous to your readers. It would be extra courteous to give parallel some PR if you love it and it really helped your research get done. > Why is this a problem? What if all gnu tools asked the same thing parallel does? What if using emacs and find and tar all asked you to cite them when using them, with obnoxious and demanding language? I use more than 100 free tools to get any paper implemented and written, my papers would be rejected if I tried to cite them all, the vast majority are not relevant to the research. > you should be safe to use it for whatever you want Yes, correct! GPL does not allow requiring citations.
  - beevai142 10y ago
    > Yes, correct! GPL does not allow requiring citations. I understand that the copyright holder can in general specify whatever clauses in the license, even if this makes it self-contradictory, and is not bound by any statements by FSF. In this case, it becomes unclear what use of the software is actually allowed.
    - mikegerwitz 10y ago
      Even if the software were licensed under two different licenses, as long as one of them were the GPL, you could choose that one. But even if you add additional terms to the GPL, you are free to remove them under Section 7: "When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Note that the GPL only applies to distributors of the software, not to users, so you wouldn't be bound to such restrictions anyway.
      - beevai142 10y ago
        The point is not that there are two licenses, but that there is one license, "GPL + additional requirements", where the copyright holder is free to add requirements contradicting the GPL. For example, a copyright holder may say "MIT license, BUT, the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.", and lawyers will balk. [1,2] [1] http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/ https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil...
        mikegerwitz 10y ago
        The copyright holder is free to use whatever license they wish, yes. But if they choose to use the GPL, they must abide by its terms. They aren't free to rewrite parts of it---their license would then be a derivative work of the GPL, which isn't permissible. Section 7 would have to be modified to say that the user can't remove such terms. If they use the GPL and impose extra terms, state that Section 7 is invalid, then there is a contradiction in the license, and it'd be up to a court to decide. I'm sure any sensible lawyer would tell them that they should use a different license; it's senseless using the GPL if you're going to try to do such a thing.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  The problem with point 1 is where to stop? Well parallel is written using Perl, so cite that? I have some bash and python scripts. Cite them? The Linux kernel? Systemd? I would cite parallel if it is required for the reader to understand or reproduce my research (for example, I report timings which were sped up by parallelisation). Otherwise it's just a tool, Like bash, the C standard library or the Linux kernel. Point 2, the author is giving the code two contradictory licences. I'm not sure which applies. Do I get to choose or does he? I'm not a lawyer.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dahart 10y ago
Most clarification I've seen on the Parallel nag/citation message points at the original email thread Ole started to ask whether this was a good idea: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.... When I see it, I get irritated, but then I disable it and completely forget for another year. It is not a legal requirement or license requirement to cite usage of parallel, and the GNU terms actually forbid making it a requirement: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation The nag's wording is also annoying and wrong about academic tradition requiring citations of all tools used, whether or not the tool is integral to research. Academic tradition does require citing others' research you build your research on top of. It does not require citing MS Word because I wrote my paper in MS Word. This is a small and stupid snag on what is otherwise a really awesome tool. My recommendation is to make the citation go away and continue using the tool, and if you use it in a way that your research actually depends on, then give the citation. If you just use gnu parallel to speed things up, and it in no way changes what you're doing or how you're thinking about it, then ignore it. Though I'm sure Ole would love to hear about projects that use parallel - what he's asking for is PR not citations, and blog posts or press or kind words that praise gnu parallel will also help him get what he needs.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  Sure GPL divide the restriction, but effectively the code is under two contradictory licences (GPL v3, and cite or pay). Why are you sure the GPL v3 is the one that "wins"?
  - temac 10y ago
    Why do you think there are 2 licenses? Where did you see any "cite or pay" license?
  - dahart 10y ago
    IANAL, but personally I'm certain myself that GPLv3 is the one and only license. The cite or pay is just a nag request, not a license. Also note it doesn't say the only options are either cite or pay exclusively, it says (obnoxiously) if you pay 10,000 EUR, feel free to not cite. If you don't pay, then you are only obligated by this request to feel guilty. Again, Ole really just wants PR here, he made that clear in the email thread. He's only asking for help, in a forceful way. If you have a reason to give him some help, and you make heavy use of parallel, it would make his day and it wouldn't hurt you. Otherwise, there is not legal requirement nor academic tradition to cite usage of parallel in academic papers, unless the papers build directly on gnu parallel. I really wouldn't be surprised if part of this is Ole felt like there were research papers about parallelism that built on gnu parallel's efforts directly and should have cited him, that he's been short changed by a few academics. But simply speeding up your data processing for doing something in a field that is not related to parallel processing at all, then parallel is simply another random tool in a huge bucket of tools to get your job done, and it has no place in an academic citation.
claudius 10y ago
Meh. The website says "Please cite", not "you must cite". To derail this a bit further, I would actually be very interested in an academic version of the AGPL - that is, a proper license that defines "publication of data produced by the work" as "distribution of the work", meaning that if someone uses the software to produce some data and then publishes said data, they also must publish (or make available on request) all changes made to the software. Unfortunately, the very strict definition in the AGPL and the interlinking between it and the GPL make this difficult to add-on later. And thus we are stuck with "please cite this so I can justify working on it, please?" instead of "You must cite this if you want to use it". Honestly, I also don’t see how this request isn’t scalable, could you expand on that?
- CJefferson 10y ago
  The software prints: If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing. That sounds to me like cite or you will be taken to court for not citing. If I cite parallel, should I cite Perl? C library? Linux kernel? Systemd?
  - claudius 10y ago
    I would make a distinction between “scientific software” and “system software”. The latter is commonly used for all sorts of things and could in principle easily be replaced. The former is specifically adapted to produce the results at hand and the results (and only the results, not for example the typesetting of the paper) depend crucially on this software and its correctness. Examples of the latter are e.g. Linux, libc, systemd etc.: All things used during production of the results, but not aimed at producing such results. The former are e.g. Matlab, the Intel MKL, ALPS, TensorFlow or similar tools and suites. A bug in the MKL may make your results wrong, while a but in the kernel will most likely just crash everything. In my experience, scientific results depend on a handful of software packets in such a way, and adding five-or-so citations to a paper is certainly no big deal and would make reproducing the results much easier. I have no idea where GNU parallel sits there, it probably depends on how you use it – do you schedule your Monte Carlo runs with it or just rescale pictures for the website? Admittedly, it is a very grey area, but I don’t consider a request for citation unreasonable.
mikegerwitz 10y ago
> (I mailed and asked for clarification, I was told to stop using the software) By whom? Was it the author? If so, can you cite your question on a mailing list?
- CJefferson 10y ago
  Look through this thread. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2016-03/msg00015.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2016-03/msg00015...
  - mikegerwitz 10y ago
    Thank you.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

avar 10y ago

It's licensed under the GPL, where you're not allowed to add any additional terms. The citation notice it spews out is annoying, but can be disabled, and you definitely don't have to include it anywhere. The author just asks for citations because he's in academia, and citation backrubs is how anyone can justify getting time to do anything (including maintaining some software) in academia.

filmor 10y ago

2 questions: - Isn't it common courtesy to cite important tools being used for data processing? Why is this a problem? - Wikipedia says the tool is under GPLv3, so from a bare licence perspective you should be safe to use it for whatever you want, shouldn't it?

dahart 10y ago
> Isn't it common courtesy to cite important tools being used for data processing? No, no it's not. It is common to cite previous work, the research you build on top of. It is not common at all to cite tools you use, unless those tools are directly related to your research. If by "important" you mean gnu parallel counts as previous work, then citation is more of a requirement than a courtesy, otherwise citing all the tools you used can be very discourteous to your readers. It would be extra courteous to give parallel some PR if you love it and it really helped your research get done. > Why is this a problem? What if all gnu tools asked the same thing parallel does? What if using emacs and find and tar all asked you to cite them when using them, with obnoxious and demanding language? I use more than 100 free tools to get any paper implemented and written, my papers would be rejected if I tried to cite them all, the vast majority are not relevant to the research. > you should be safe to use it for whatever you want Yes, correct! GPL does not allow requiring citations.
- beevai142 10y ago
  > Yes, correct! GPL does not allow requiring citations. I understand that the copyright holder can in general specify whatever clauses in the license, even if this makes it self-contradictory, and is not bound by any statements by FSF. In this case, it becomes unclear what use of the software is actually allowed.
  - mikegerwitz 10y ago
    Even if the software were licensed under two different licenses, as long as one of them were the GPL, you could choose that one. But even if you add additional terms to the GPL, you are free to remove them under Section 7: "When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Note that the GPL only applies to distributors of the software, not to users, so you wouldn't be bound to such restrictions anyway.
    - beevai142 10y ago
      The point is not that there are two licenses, but that there is one license, "GPL + additional requirements", where the copyright holder is free to add requirements contradicting the GPL. For example, a copyright holder may say "MIT license, BUT, the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.", and lawyers will balk. [1,2] [1] http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/ https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil...
      - mikegerwitz 10y ago
        The copyright holder is free to use whatever license they wish, yes. But if they choose to use the GPL, they must abide by its terms. They aren't free to rewrite parts of it---their license would then be a derivative work of the GPL, which isn't permissible. Section 7 would have to be modified to say that the user can't remove such terms. If they use the GPL and impose extra terms, state that Section 7 is invalid, then there is a contradiction in the license, and it'd be up to a court to decide. I'm sure any sensible lawyer would tell them that they should use a different license; it's senseless using the GPL if you're going to try to do such a thing.
CJefferson 10y ago
The problem with point 1 is where to stop? Well parallel is written using Perl, so cite that? I have some bash and python scripts. Cite them? The Linux kernel? Systemd? I would cite parallel if it is required for the reader to understand or reproduce my research (for example, I report timings which were sped up by parallelisation). Otherwise it's just a tool, Like bash, the C standard library or the Linux kernel. Point 2, the author is giving the code two contradictory licences. I'm not sure which applies. Do I get to choose or does he? I'm not a lawyer.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dahart 10y ago

Most clarification I've seen on the Parallel nag/citation message points at the original email thread Ole started to ask whether this was a good idea: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.... When I see it, I get irritated, but then I disable it and completely forget for another year. It is not a legal requirement or license requirement to cite usage of parallel, and the GNU terms actually forbid making it a requirement: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation The nag's wording is also annoying and wrong about academic tradition requiring citations of all tools used, whether or not the tool is integral to research. Academic tradition does require citing others' research you build your research on top of. It does not require citing MS Word because I wrote my paper in MS Word. This is a small and stupid snag on what is otherwise a really awesome tool. My recommendation is to make the citation go away and continue using the tool, and if you use it in a way that your research actually depends on, then give the citation. If you just use gnu parallel to speed things up, and it in no way changes what you're doing or how you're thinking about it, then ignore it. Though I'm sure Ole would love to hear about projects that use parallel - what he's asking for is PR not citations, and blog posts or press or kind words that praise gnu parallel will also help him get what he needs.

CJefferson 10y ago
Sure GPL divide the restriction, but effectively the code is under two contradictory licences (GPL v3, and cite or pay). Why are you sure the GPL v3 is the one that "wins"?
- temac 10y ago
  Why do you think there are 2 licenses? Where did you see any "cite or pay" license?
- dahart 10y ago
  IANAL, but personally I'm certain myself that GPLv3 is the one and only license. The cite or pay is just a nag request, not a license. Also note it doesn't say the only options are either cite or pay exclusively, it says (obnoxiously) if you pay 10,000 EUR, feel free to not cite. If you don't pay, then you are only obligated by this request to feel guilty. Again, Ole really just wants PR here, he made that clear in the email thread. He's only asking for help, in a forceful way. If you have a reason to give him some help, and you make heavy use of parallel, it would make his day and it wouldn't hurt you. Otherwise, there is not legal requirement nor academic tradition to cite usage of parallel in academic papers, unless the papers build directly on gnu parallel. I really wouldn't be surprised if part of this is Ole felt like there were research papers about parallelism that built on gnu parallel's efforts directly and should have cited him, that he's been short changed by a few academics. But simply speeding up your data processing for doing something in a field that is not related to parallel processing at all, then parallel is simply another random tool in a huge bucket of tools to get your job done, and it has no place in an academic citation.

claudius 10y ago

Meh. The website says "Please cite", not "you must cite". To derail this a bit further, I would actually be very interested in an academic version of the AGPL - that is, a proper license that defines "publication of data produced by the work" as "distribution of the work", meaning that if someone uses the software to produce some data and then publishes said data, they also must publish (or make available on request) all changes made to the software. Unfortunately, the very strict definition in the AGPL and the interlinking between it and the GPL make this difficult to add-on later. And thus we are stuck with "please cite this so I can justify working on it, please?" instead of "You must cite this if you want to use it". Honestly, I also don’t see how this request isn’t scalable, could you expand on that?

CJefferson 10y ago
The software prints: If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing. That sounds to me like cite or you will be taken to court for not citing. If I cite parallel, should I cite Perl? C library? Linux kernel? Systemd?
- claudius 10y ago
  I would make a distinction between “scientific software” and “system software”. The latter is commonly used for all sorts of things and could in principle easily be replaced. The former is specifically adapted to produce the results at hand and the results (and only the results, not for example the typesetting of the paper) depend crucially on this software and its correctness. Examples of the latter are e.g. Linux, libc, systemd etc.: All things used during production of the results, but not aimed at producing such results. The former are e.g. Matlab, the Intel MKL, ALPS, TensorFlow or similar tools and suites. A bug in the MKL may make your results wrong, while a but in the kernel will most likely just crash everything. In my experience, scientific results depend on a handful of software packets in such a way, and adding five-or-so citations to a paper is certainly no big deal and would make reproducing the results much easier. I have no idea where GNU parallel sits there, it probably depends on how you use it – do you schedule your Monte Carlo runs with it or just rescale pictures for the website? Admittedly, it is a very grey area, but I don’t consider a request for citation unreasonable.

mikegerwitz 10y ago

> (I mailed and asked for clarification, I was told to stop using the software) By whom? Was it the author? If so, can you cite your question on a mailing list?

CJefferson 10y ago
Look through this thread. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2016-03/msg00015.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2016-03/msg00015...
- mikegerwitz 10y ago
  Thank you.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]