4 ms·

It is "nonsense" because...? A) You don't understand. Please read the "Citation notice" section in the article. B) You understand but don't use GNU Parallel.

by RhysU 4y ago

It is "nonsense" because...? A) You don't understand. Please read the "Citation notice" section in the article. B) You understand but don't use GNU Parallel. C) You understand and use GNU Parallel in a non-academic setting and find the hassle of supplying --no-notice to be onerous vs the effort to write/maintain your own tool. D) You understand and use GNU Parallel in an academic setting and have cited Ole or plan to cite Ole. From the article, nearly 10 years ago Ole added the citation behavior after discussing it with his users: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006... Ole's citations took off roughly coincident with this behavior being added: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=D7I0K34AAAAJ&view_op=list_works https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=D7I0K34AAAAJ... (click "Cited By" and notice the bar chart).

caro11ne 4y ago
Is this not covered in depth in the f.a.q? 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...
hexane360 4y ago
It's nonsense because the standard in academic settings is to cite works which contribute scientifically to the current work, not merely utilities. If I publish a paper on a command line tool for parallel processing, inspired by features from GNU parallel, I would cite GNU parallel. But if I'm doing (for instance) computational biology work, I'm not going to cite: - the Linux kernel - Python - Matlab - GNU parallel - RFC 793 - Every other program I use Asking for citations is fine. But GNU parallel wants to treat it like a requirement of using the software, without making it a condition of the copyright: "== 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." This is disingenuous, because citing every tool you use in preparing a scientific work is not part of academic tradition. And the statement that "If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing." doesn't make any sense in the "academic tradition" framing. If Ole thinks citations are required by academic tradition, that shouldn't change if I pay him enough money. "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. 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." And this is legal nonsense. If I release something under a license, and then break that license, that doesn't nullify the original license. Claiming otherwise would allow me to un-copyleft someone else's code.
- justeleblanc 4y ago
  Also, in what world is OSS financed by citations (which is stated as fact in the manpage)? The whole thing is just bizarre. Do I have to cite the manufacturer of my desk because I wrote my paper there?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- RhysU 4y ago
  > It's nonsense because the standard in academic settings is to cite works which contribute scientifically to the current work, not merely utilities. Whether or not it's standard is irrelevant. Ole asked you to cite him if you use it. So, if you publish academically, either don't use it or cite him. If not using GNU Parallel hinders your science then the tool must be material to your work flows. For comparison, how many dumb citations do people add to their papers that point to marginally relevant work coming out of the same research center or academic lineage? Those aren't scientifically relevant but they are standard. Let's not pretend the academy is full of citation purists.
  - chungy 4y ago
    At least in the real world, free software doesn't demand that you agree with authors or do anything really. For as long as Ole keeps Parallel as free software, we can use it regardless of complying with requests. Quite honestly, I think the behavior is on the highest order of jerkishness. A nice request could be done in the documentation, instead the path chosen is to bully users of the software. Once more, because it is free software, we are free to use it despite what Ole thinks. We are free to patch it out too.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - RhysU 4y ago
      Ignoring his wishes and patching around them is also being a jerk. The dude didn't have to open source or maintain anything.
chungy 4y ago
How about E) I understand and use GNU Parallel and also completely disagree with the author's insistence that citing tools is appropriate. Even in your second link, almost everything listed are papers about Parallel itself. If I was writing about Parallel, I'd be fine with citing it. If instead it's the means to another end, I wouldn't.
xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
It's nonsense because a utility like parallel shouldn't require state, let alone state used only to disable a nag message. It's far less annoying to simply patch out the nag. As others point out, it's further annoying because it doesn't even make any sense to begin with. If it was asking for donations or something I could maybe even get behind it, but the current message is pretentious and useless. It serves no real purpose.
- RhysU 4y ago
  Then hop on the mailing list and suggest he set up a donation drop and donate.
  - xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
    Arguing with Ole is a waste of time. My parallel is patched, I don't care any longer.

by RhysU 4y ago

caro11ne 4y ago

Is this not covered in depth in the f.a.q? 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...

hexane360 4y ago

It's nonsense because the standard in academic settings is to cite works which contribute scientifically to the current work, not merely utilities. If I publish a paper on a command line tool for parallel processing, inspired by features from GNU parallel, I would cite GNU parallel. But if I'm doing (for instance) computational biology work, I'm not going to cite: - the Linux kernel - Python - Matlab - GNU parallel - RFC 793 - Every other program I use Asking for citations is fine. But GNU parallel wants to treat it like a requirement of using the software, without making it a condition of the copyright: "== 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." This is disingenuous, because citing every tool you use in preparing a scientific work is not part of academic tradition. And the statement that "If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing." doesn't make any sense in the "academic tradition" framing. If Ole thinks citations are required by academic tradition, that shouldn't change if I pay him enough money. "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. 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." And this is legal nonsense. If I release something under a license, and then break that license, that doesn't nullify the original license. Claiming otherwise would allow me to un-copyleft someone else's code.

justeleblanc 4y ago
Also, in what world is OSS financed by citations (which is stated as fact in the manpage)? The whole thing is just bizarre. Do I have to cite the manufacturer of my desk because I wrote my paper there?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
RhysU 4y ago
> It's nonsense because the standard in academic settings is to cite works which contribute scientifically to the current work, not merely utilities. Whether or not it's standard is irrelevant. Ole asked you to cite him if you use it. So, if you publish academically, either don't use it or cite him. If not using GNU Parallel hinders your science then the tool must be material to your work flows. For comparison, how many dumb citations do people add to their papers that point to marginally relevant work coming out of the same research center or academic lineage? Those aren't scientifically relevant but they are standard. Let's not pretend the academy is full of citation purists.
- chungy 4y ago
  At least in the real world, free software doesn't demand that you agree with authors or do anything really. For as long as Ole keeps Parallel as free software, we can use it regardless of complying with requests. Quite honestly, I think the behavior is on the highest order of jerkishness. A nice request could be done in the documentation, instead the path chosen is to bully users of the software. Once more, because it is free software, we are free to use it despite what Ole thinks. We are free to patch it out too.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - RhysU 4y ago
    Ignoring his wishes and patching around them is also being a jerk. The dude didn't have to open source or maintain anything.

chungy 4y ago

How about E) I understand and use GNU Parallel and also completely disagree with the author's insistence that citing tools is appropriate. Even in your second link, almost everything listed are papers about Parallel itself. If I was writing about Parallel, I'd be fine with citing it. If instead it's the means to another end, I wouldn't.

xyzzy_plugh 4y ago

It's nonsense because a utility like parallel shouldn't require state, let alone state used only to disable a nag message. It's far less annoying to simply patch out the nag. As others point out, it's further annoying because it doesn't even make any sense to begin with. If it was asking for donations or something I could maybe even get behind it, but the current message is pretentious and useless. It serves no real purpose.

RhysU 4y ago
Then hop on the mailing list and suggest he set up a donation drop and donate.
- xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
  Arguing with Ole is a waste of time. My parallel is patched, I don't care any longer.