6 ms·

It's nice, but the citation bit strikes me as very non-free: > If you use --will-cite in scripts to be run by others you are making it harder for others to see

It's nice, but the citation bit strikes me as very non-free: > If you use --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 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 --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 consider using another tool instead of GNU parallel. You can find some of the alternatives in man parallel_alternatives.

stabbles 5y ago
I don't understand how GNU finds this acceptable...
- CaliforniaKarl 5y ago
  [edited for formatting and to fix Git link] According to https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita... > == 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 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation If you are of the view that clearance by RMS is clearance by FSF/GNU, then that's how they find it acceptable. If you take a different view, then the next part of that section applies: > If you disagree with Richard M. Stallman's interpretation 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. There's also an interesting comparison to be made: > == 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 LibreOffice, Firefox and similar programs.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - paskozdilar 5y ago
    This is an excellent explanation of why "GNU finds this acceptable". Note that the citation message can also be easily silenced just by creating an empty file: touch ~/.parallel/will-cite
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kazinator 5y ago
      Tools shouldn't be probing the file system for files not related to the job they are doing, period. The right way to do this is to patch the behavior out of the program, which you're entitled to do by its license. Or, rather by the fact that the license doesn't concern itself with use. That is covered in the FAQ: == 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. If you're not redistributing it, this doesn't apply to you; you're only using the program. I believe that a distro could get around this by providing a script a user can execute, or a patch that the user can apply that removes the nag code from the installation of GNU Parallel. Even if we take the view that the script creates a fork, it only creates a private one on the user's machine, and not anything that is redistributed; without distribution taking place, what is taking place is use.
      - paskozdilar 5y ago
        > Tools shouldn't be probing the file system for files not related to the job they are doing, period. You're entitled to your preferences and your own fork of the GNU Parallel. I'll even help you out with that - all you need to do to remove the citation message is to comment out lines 1840-1843 in "src/parallel" file. Just please don't demand everyone else (i.e. distro maintainers) to stab the main developer in the back just to accommodate your preferences.
- musicale 5y ago
  I don't care what GNU thinks, but it's simply not scalable. Imagine a world where every utility has its own irritating nag message that needs to be turned off.
  - krapht 5y ago
    Don't need to imagine, I lived in that world where most utilities I used were shareware with a nag screen on startup...
    - musicale 5y ago
      I think I'll pass on GNU/Linux: Shareware Edition.
      - dehrmann 5y ago
        But for only $20, they'll send you Episode II, GNU Hurd.
    - MainJane 5y ago
      I still remember when those were not of the "OK, don't show this again" type, so you could not simply stop them first after the first run.
  - MainJane 5y ago
    > I don't care what GNU thinks, but it's simply not scalable. How so? A lot of software requires you to configure it before the first run, and we regard that as scalable. A lot of software requires you to pay for it before the first run (most Microsoft server software comes to mind), yet we regard that as scalable. You can also pay for gnu paralell: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt#n200 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita... Is it because you insist that you get software for free (zero cost in gnu speak)? Because that is really not what the free software movement is all about.
    - deleted 5y ago
6keZbCECT2uB 5y ago
Thinking about the citation notice and whether the software is safe to use at work is why I just use xargs.
petepete 5y ago
I was trying to use parallel properly for the first time last week and the nag screen put me off and made me choose an alternative. I ended up with the moreutils one and it appears to work just as well for my simple needs.
- MainJane 5y ago
  I think that is the right thing to do: Don't like it? Don't use it. Also: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt#n240 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...
Athas 5y ago
It doesn't affect your right to do anything with the software. It doesn't even affect your right to remove this citation notice (and some distributions do so). Free software is not about software not being annoying; merely about your right to remove the annoyances. I'm not certain GNU parallel's approach to obtaining funding is a good strategy, but I find it weird that people object to it on philosophical or legal grounds.
- CaliforniaKarl 5y ago
  > I'm not certain GNU parallel's approach to obtaining funding is a good strategy, Indeed, it's a good question! I know that, for the SGI UV300 we got through an NIH S10 grant, the usage of the supercomputer is tracked by looking for the grant number in publication acknowledgements. Yes, we already got the money, so you may wonder "what does it matter?", but our ability to get future funding (especially as the UV300 nears retirement age) depends (at least in part) on showing how well we used our previous funding. In our case, the funding came through an NIH grant, so we ask people reference the grant number. But more broadly, and especially for software, issuing a DOI for released versions (through a service like Zenodo https://zenodo.org https://zenodo.org), along with a request for acknowledgement, gives a way to track usage. For example, the 20150322 release of parallel (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16303) has been cited at least 63 times (per https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16303 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16303). Looking at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=D7I0K34AAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=D7I0K34AAAAJ&hl=en, it seems the 2011 version of Parallel has been cited over 1,000 times. The author is at the University of Copenhagen (per the Google Scholar link above), so it's entirely possible that at least some of the funding for his employment is coming from sources that use citation counts as an indicator that they are "getting their money's worth" by continuing to fund (at least part of) Mr. Tange's employment.
CaliforniaKarl 5y ago
Your concern about this being non-free is addressed by an entire FAQ. Here's a link to the FAQ page from the software's Git repo: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
musicale 5y ago
We may need a standard directory and behavior for naggy utilities of this type. Maybe something like: for util in /usr/annoying/bin/*; do touch ~/.$(basename $util)/stfu done Of course I don't like the idea of having to create a prefs file for every obnoxious utility, but that's the way parallel is currently operating. Maybe all such utilities could be required to use standard nag library with a global setting.
- MainJane 5y ago
  Would it not be more fruitful addressing the hard issue: Funding. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt#n206 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita... I think many free software developers would rejoice if you cracked that problem.
musicale 5y ago
It seems to be encouraging inappropriate citation. It is certainly not standard practice and would probably be considered something of a violation of academic ethics. If you're not describing an experiment or system that uses GNU parallel as one of its key components then it makes no sense to cite it any more than it does to cite any other utility.
- MainJane 5y ago
  > If you're not describing an experiment or system that uses GNU parallel as one of its key components then it makes no sense to cite it any more than it does to cite any other utility. GNU Parallel agrees with you, but also gives you a test of when to regard it as a "key component" (as you put it): https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt#n106 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita... > 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 it is too much work replacing the use of GNU Parallel, then it is a good indication that the contribution to the research is big enough to warrant a citation.

stabbles 5y ago

I don't understand how GNU finds this acceptable...

CaliforniaKarl 5y ago
[edited for formatting and to fix Git link] According to https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita... > == 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 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation If you are of the view that clearance by RMS is clearance by FSF/GNU, then that's how they find it acceptable. If you take a different view, then the next part of that section applies: > If you disagree with Richard M. Stallman's interpretation 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. There's also an interesting comparison to be made: > == 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 LibreOffice, Firefox and similar programs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- paskozdilar 5y ago
  This is an excellent explanation of why "GNU finds this acceptable". Note that the citation message can also be easily silenced just by creating an empty file: touch ~/.parallel/will-cite
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kazinator 5y ago
    Tools shouldn't be probing the file system for files not related to the job they are doing, period. The right way to do this is to patch the behavior out of the program, which you're entitled to do by its license. Or, rather by the fact that the license doesn't concern itself with use. That is covered in the FAQ: == 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. If you're not redistributing it, this doesn't apply to you; you're only using the program. I believe that a distro could get around this by providing a script a user can execute, or a patch that the user can apply that removes the nag code from the installation of GNU Parallel. Even if we take the view that the script creates a fork, it only creates a private one on the user's machine, and not anything that is redistributed; without distribution taking place, what is taking place is use.
    - paskozdilar 5y ago
      > Tools shouldn't be probing the file system for files not related to the job they are doing, period. You're entitled to your preferences and your own fork of the GNU Parallel. I'll even help you out with that - all you need to do to remove the citation message is to comment out lines 1840-1843 in "src/parallel" file. Just please don't demand everyone else (i.e. distro maintainers) to stab the main developer in the back just to accommodate your preferences.
musicale 5y ago
I don't care what GNU thinks, but it's simply not scalable. Imagine a world where every utility has its own irritating nag message that needs to be turned off.
- krapht 5y ago
  Don't need to imagine, I lived in that world where most utilities I used were shareware with a nag screen on startup...
  - musicale 5y ago
    I think I'll pass on GNU/Linux: Shareware Edition.
    - dehrmann 5y ago
      But for only $20, they'll send you Episode II, GNU Hurd.
  - MainJane 5y ago
    I still remember when those were not of the "OK, don't show this again" type, so you could not simply stop them first after the first run.
- MainJane 5y ago
  > I don't care what GNU thinks, but it's simply not scalable. How so? A lot of software requires you to configure it before the first run, and we regard that as scalable. A lot of software requires you to pay for it before the first run (most Microsoft server software comes to mind), yet we regard that as scalable. You can also pay for gnu paralell: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt#n200 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita... Is it because you insist that you get software for free (zero cost in gnu speak)? Because that is really not what the free software movement is all about.
  - deleted 5y ago

6keZbCECT2uB 5y ago

Thinking about the citation notice and whether the software is safe to use at work is why I just use xargs.

petepete 5y ago

I was trying to use parallel properly for the first time last week and the nag screen put me off and made me choose an alternative. I ended up with the moreutils one and it appears to work just as well for my simple needs.

MainJane 5y ago
I think that is the right thing to do: Don't like it? Don't use it. Also: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt#n240 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...

Athas 5y ago

It doesn't affect your right to do anything with the software. It doesn't even affect your right to remove this citation notice (and some distributions do so). Free software is not about software not being annoying; merely about your right to remove the annoyances. I'm not certain GNU parallel's approach to obtaining funding is a good strategy, but I find it weird that people object to it on philosophical or legal grounds.

CaliforniaKarl 5y ago
> I'm not certain GNU parallel's approach to obtaining funding is a good strategy, Indeed, it's a good question! I know that, for the SGI UV300 we got through an NIH S10 grant, the usage of the supercomputer is tracked by looking for the grant number in publication acknowledgements. Yes, we already got the money, so you may wonder "what does it matter?", but our ability to get future funding (especially as the UV300 nears retirement age) depends (at least in part) on showing how well we used our previous funding. In our case, the funding came through an NIH grant, so we ask people reference the grant number. But more broadly, and especially for software, issuing a DOI for released versions (through a service like Zenodo https://zenodo.org https://zenodo.org), along with a request for acknowledgement, gives a way to track usage. For example, the 20150322 release of parallel (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16303) has been cited at least 63 times (per https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16303 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16303). Looking at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=D7I0K34AAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=D7I0K34AAAAJ&hl=en, it seems the 2011 version of Parallel has been cited over 1,000 times. The author is at the University of Copenhagen (per the Google Scholar link above), so it's entirely possible that at least some of the funding for his employment is coming from sources that use citation counts as an indicator that they are "getting their money's worth" by continuing to fund (at least part of) Mr. Tange's employment.

CaliforniaKarl 5y ago

Your concern about this being non-free is addressed by an entire FAQ. Here's a link to the FAQ page from the software's Git repo: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

musicale 5y ago

We may need a standard directory and behavior for naggy utilities of this type. Maybe something like: for util in /usr/annoying/bin/*; do touch ~/.$(basename $util)/stfu done Of course I don't like the idea of having to create a prefs file for every obnoxious utility, but that's the way parallel is currently operating. Maybe all such utilities could be required to use standard nag library with a global setting.

MainJane 5y ago
Would it not be more fruitful addressing the hard issue: Funding. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt#n206 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita... I think many free software developers would rejoice if you cracked that problem.

musicale 5y ago

It seems to be encouraging inappropriate citation. It is certainly not standard practice and would probably be considered something of a violation of academic ethics. If you're not describing an experiment or system that uses GNU parallel as one of its key components then it makes no sense to cite it any more than it does to cite any other utility.

MainJane 5y ago
> If you're not describing an experiment or system that uses GNU parallel as one of its key components then it makes no sense to cite it any more than it does to cite any other utility. GNU Parallel agrees with you, but also gives you a test of when to regard it as a "key component" (as you put it): https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt#n106 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita... > 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 it is too much work replacing the use of GNU Parallel, then it is a good indication that the contribution to the research is big enough to warrant a citation.