4 ms·

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

[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