5 ms·

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 GPLv

by 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.
        beevai142 10y ago
        I don't think Section 7 enables automatically ignoring non-permissive additional terms --- the "additional permissions" are defined in the section to be exceptions from conditions, not as further restrictions. Interpreting what exactly happens in this case probably requires a lawyer. It's of course the case that using GPL and adding such clauses does not make any sense. GNU parallel does not appear to be doing this, as the license text is unmodified GPL with no additional clauses.
        mikegerwitz 10y ago
        The exception would be on Section 2: "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."
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.

by filmor 10y ago

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.
      - beevai142 10y ago
        I don't think Section 7 enables automatically ignoring non-permissive additional terms --- the "additional permissions" are defined in the section to be exceptions from conditions, not as further restrictions. Interpreting what exactly happens in this case probably requires a lawyer. It's of course the case that using GPL and adding such clauses does not make any sense. GNU parallel does not appear to be doing this, as the license text is unmodified GPL with no additional clauses.
        mikegerwitz 10y ago
        The exception would be on Section 2: "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."

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.