Bug#915541: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Le Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 08:37:38PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel/-/blob/master/debian/patches/remove-overreaching-citation-request.patch). Hi all, sorry but how likely is it that we will break user scripts with this patch ? https://github.com/search?q=%22parallel+--citation%22=code I think that it would be better to disable citation checks without changing availability of the command-line options. (Sorry that I can not do it myself). Ole, in Debian we put a lot of effort providing citation information in a central space, so that one can collect detailed references for complete pipelines made using our packages. https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel/-/blob/master/debian/upstream/metadata But better than a bibliographic DOI, have you consideded registering a RRID ? (https://www.rrids.org/) (https://scicrunch.org/resources) This will give scientists an easier way to declare their use of your work in their publications without going to troubles about space in the bibliography section, which is limited by many journals. To the others: do you know a way to list or count the publications that refer to a given RRID ? Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Hi,
While I was starting to prepare a non-maintainer upload to re-introduce
the patch that removed --will-cite, I realized that the patch was
already re-introduced in version 20210822+ds-2 (see
https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel/-/blob/master/debian/patches/remove-overreaching-citation-request.patch).
As the patch shows, the "please cite" wording is still mentioned in
--help and in the manpage's AUTHOR section (without the 1 EUR mention).
Also, --help points to the Zenodo for GNU Parallel 20210822 ('Kabul'),
while the manpage points to the USENIX ;login: article, but that
inconsistency is also present in the original version.
So, everything looks fine from my POV.
Lucas
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:06 AM Sam Hartman wrote: : > This seems clearly within the power Debian grants individual maintainers > to either keep the citation notice or to remove it. I hope my stance is clear: I want to have an income from developing free software. The citation notice indirectly gives me that. If you want to take away this without paying me in a different way, I can only see that as an active hostile action: You are threatening my livelihood. Having GNU Parallel moved to non-free or not being distributed by Debian at all is preferable to having my livelihood attacked. Remember: I am not the enemy - I am the reason you have something to package in the first place; so please don't behave like a dick - even if what you intend to do might technically be legal. I will be happy to work with anyone who understands this stance and who wants to work to find a solution that everyone can accept. And given I just want the citation notice shown to people who write scientific articles, I really think we can find such a solution. /Ole
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On 11/09/21 at 21:47 +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> :
> > (1) the wording almost requires citation
>
> I take this as you agree that it does not require citation.
[...]
> > With a wrong eye, one could even see it as extortion/blackmail.
>
> To me extortion/blackmail is when I have done something that I cannot
> undo and now I have to pay to keep it a secret.
>
> If you feel it can be seen as extortion/blackmail: Would it not make
> it even *more* important that the researchers read the citation notice
> *before* using the software?
>
> To me it could never be perceived as neither extortion nor blackmail:
>
> * The user is aware of the citation notice when he starts using GNU Parallel
> * There are plenty of alternatives - more than 50 of them are even
> mentioned in the documentation
> * If you feel GNU Parallel does not contribute enough to warrant a
> citation: Prove it by using an alternative
>
> Would it be fair to summarize your critique as you in your personal
> opinion do not like the citation notice, but there are neither legal
> nor technical reasons for this? In other words: It is a matter of
> taste.
For context, what GNU parallel currently displays (in the development
version):
> Academic tradition requires you to cite works you base your article on.
> If you use programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for an article in a
> scientific publication, please cite:
>
> Tange, O. (2021, August 22). GNU Parallel 20210822 ('Kabul').
> Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5233953
>
> This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.
> If you pay 1 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
>
> More about funding GNU Parallel and the citation notice:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
>
> To silence this citation notice: run 'parallel --citation' once.
I disagree with:
> Academic tradition requires you to cite works you base your article on.
This is too strong. I would agree with something less general such as:
> Academic tradition is to cite works one bases their articles on.
If I use Debian as the OS for experiments in an article, there's no
reason to cite it (but there might be good reasons to mention it, as it
could influence reproducibility). Also, citations are generally based on
ideas/concepts. The use of GNU parallel for data processing is most
likely a technicality, unless the paper is about parallel data
processing.
> If you use programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for an article in a
> scientific publication, please cite:
>
> Tange, O. (2021, August 22). GNU Parallel 20210822 ('Kabul').
> Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5233953
That part is OK and fairly standard for scientific software.
> This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.
> If you pay 1 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
This is misleading. If I don't pay 1 EUR and don't cite, I should
still feel totally free to use GNU parallel without citing, if GNU
parallel is simply free software under the GNU GPL.
In the FAQ, you also wrote:
> Q: I do not think it is fair having to cite
> R: If the inconvenience of having to cite is too big for you, then you
> should use another tool.
Which is also too strong. it's not an "inconvenience of having to cite",
but an inconvenience of "being gently asked to cite", for example.
I'm actually very surprised that the GNU project allows this in an official
GNU package.
Lucas
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
> "Ole" == Ole Tange writes: Ole> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Ole> : >> (1) the wording almost requires citation Ole> I take this as you agree that it does not require Ole> citation. Also you do not point to how the default behaviour of Ole> the current version of GNU Parallel conflicts with Debian's Ole> standards. If you believe it conflicts with Debian's standards, Ole> please point to the specific paragraph(s). I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works (pointing to specific paragraphs in a case like this). My take on this discussion is that there's nothing for debian-legal here. This seems clearly within the power Debian grants individual maintainers to either keep the citation notice or to remove it. You as upstream can make your decisions after the Debian maintainer makes theirs. You can do anything from thanking the maintainer (presumably if they do something you agree with), to raising a trademark issue (saying you believe Debian needs to change the name), to reconsidering where you put your time based on what funding you are receiving. I don't think that discussing this issue on debian-legal any more serves any purpose. There isn't a project level consensus that would override a maintainer here. It seems that the maintainer would have sufficient support if they removed the citation requirement. However it also seems unlikely that there would be sufficient support to override a maintainer if they chose to keep the notice. There were also some debconf or wrapper options discussed, and those also seem within the latitude we grant our maintainers. --Sam
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote: : > (1) the wording almost requires citation I take this as you agree that it does not require citation. Also you do not point to how the default behaviour of the current version of GNU Parallel conflicts with Debian's standards. If you believe it conflicts with Debian's standards, please point to the specific paragraph(s). > (2) it does so by providing a version-specific citation, not a generic To me it is more honest to cite the specific version you are actually using than to cite an article about software that is 10 years old, and which may not have the features that you depend on. But if the general consensus is that it is more honest to cite the old article, I will be perfectly happy with that. If this is what blocks us from reaching a compromise we can agree on, I will change that in the next version. > With a wrong eye, one could even see it as extortion/blackmail. To me extortion/blackmail is when I have done something that I cannot undo and now I have to pay to keep it a secret. If you feel it can be seen as extortion/blackmail: Would it not make it even *more* important that the researchers read the citation notice *before* using the software? To me it could never be perceived as neither extortion nor blackmail: * The user is aware of the citation notice when he starts using GNU Parallel * There are plenty of alternatives - more than 50 of them are even mentioned in the documentation * If you feel GNU Parallel does not contribute enough to warrant a citation: Prove it by using an alternative Would it be fair to summarize your critique as you in your personal opinion do not like the citation notice, but there are neither legal nor technical reasons for this? In other words: It is a matter of taste. /Ole
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On 03/09/21 at 08:04 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > > > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU > > parallel > > would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad. > > The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though. > > Maybe the debconf system can provide a choice? The default could be > consistent with Debian's standards. I like this idea. It would allow organizations to install GNU parallel with --will-cite disabled, but instead mention the "please cite" request in user documentation. Lucas
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On 06/09/21 at 20:56 +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:05 PM Felix Lechner
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > >
> > > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU
> > > parallel
> > > would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
> > > The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though.
>
> Maybe it would help if the consequences were explained to them:
>
> * Do you want the software with no citation notice and risk that the
> maintainer will step down because he cannot afford spending time on it
> - thus getting less free software in the long run?
> * Or do you want to spend the 10 seconds it takes to silence the
> notice if you don't want to see it?
>
> The ultimate goal has never been to have a license notice. The goal is
> to make it possible for me to spend time developing free software. In
> practice this means either pay my salary or have GNU Parallel cited,
> so it is easier for me to get a job that pays my salary.
>
> It is unlikely that the Debian project will provide my salary, so let
> us focus on the second part.
>
> Before the license notice was implemented researchers forgot to cite
> GNU Parallel; not because they did not want to honor the tradition,
> but simply because they forgot. The citation notice changed this for
> the better.
>
> If there is a different way that will ensure researchers will not
> forget, it would be acceptable to me.
It is common for scientific tools or research infrastructures to provide
a "how to cite" section in their documentation. This is not a problem:
when researchers freely determine that they should cite something (for
example to provide the necessary context for their work) it's a good
idea to help them do that. See for example
https://www.open-mpi.org/papers/
Alternatively, infrastructures (and funding organizations) often require
an acknowledgement in publications. See for example
https://prace-ri.eu/hpc-access/project-access/project-access-information-for-awarded-projects/
However GNU parallel goes much further than that, because:
(1) the wording almost requires citation
(2) it does so by providing a version-specific citation, not a generic
one. In the past, it was asking to cite:
O. Tange (2011): GNU Parallel - The Command-Line Power Tool,
;login: The USENIX Magazine, February 2011:42-47.
(This publication attracted 939 citations according to Google Scholar)
But now it asks to cite (in the current development version):
@software{tange_2021_5233953,
author = {Tange, Ole},
title= {GNU Parallel 20210822 ('Kabul')},
month= Aug,
year = 2021,
note = {{GNU Parallel is a general parallelizer to run
multiple serial command line programs in parallel
without changing them.}},
publisher= {Zenodo},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.5233953},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5233953}
}
In a way, this is a way to manipulate metrics such as h-index, by
artificially generating several entries that will collect some
citations.
It is also marginally an abuse of the Zenodo archive: Zenodo provides a
way to track versions for the same software or dataset (see for example the
Versions box in https://zenodo.org/record/5458943). GNU parallel uses
different records, as if each version was different software. (I'm not
sure if this is done by mistake or also serves the purpose of generating
different entries to accumulate citations)
Thus while asking users to acknowledge their use of GNU Parallel in
publications would be totally OK, My personal opinion is that this goes
too far (and might also be ethically questionable). With a wrong eye,
one could even see it as extortion/blackmail.
Lucas
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:05 PM Felix Lechner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > > > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU > > parallel > > would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad. > > The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though. Maybe it would help if the consequences were explained to them: * Do you want the software with no citation notice and risk that the maintainer will step down because he cannot afford spending time on it - thus getting less free software in the long run? * Or do you want to spend the 10 seconds it takes to silence the notice if you don't want to see it? I think more users would be more sad if the software was no longer maintained. But you will no doubt get a few vocal exceptions. But maybe there exists a third option. > Maybe the debconf system can provide a choice? The default could be > consistent with Debian's standards. Can we agree that a click-wrap requires the user to actively do something (e.g. clicking) before he can use the software? If so: The citation notice is not a click-wrap, because the GNU Parallel will run just fine without silencing the notice. It doesn't even break scripts. It is still not clear to me how the default behaviour of the current version of GNU Parallel conflicts with Debian's standards: The citation notice provides you with useful information if you are a researcher who publishes; it does not limit who can use the software. If you believe it conflicts with Debian's standards, point to the specific paragraph. (I accept that wording in version 20141022 was unclear - and I can see how you could argue that back then). The ultimate goal has never been to have a license notice. The goal is to make it possible for me to spend time developing free software. In practice this means either pay my salary or have GNU Parallel cited, so it is easier for me to get a job that pays my salary. It is unlikely that the Debian project will provide my salary, so let us focus on the second part. Before the license notice was implemented researchers forgot to cite GNU Parallel; not because they did not want to honor the tradition, but simply because they forgot. The citation notice changed this for the better. If there is a different way that will ensure researchers will not forget, it would be acceptable to me. I am open to (but not convinced) that a debconf choice would accomplish this. If you believe it will, please elaborate how. /Ole
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Hi, On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU parallel > would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad. > The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though. Maybe the debconf system can provide a choice? The default could be consistent with Debian's standards. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 08:44:49AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Tobias" == Tobias Frost writes: > > Tobias> as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's. > By this dxo you mean > > 1) clip wraps are incompatible with the DFSG? (I agree only if > something in the license prevents you from removing them) > > 2) Click wraps are a no-go in something you maintain? (okay, sure, > sounds good) > > 3) Click wraps are incompatible with some written Debian policy or > rules? (I disagree) > > 4) A lot of Debian maintainers might choose to remove click wraps or not > package software with them (I agree) 1, 2 and 4 ;-) But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU parallel would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad. The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though. (my 2 cents...) -- tobi
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
> "Tobias" == Tobias Frost writes: Tobias> as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's. By this dxo you mean 1) clip wraps are incompatible with the DFSG? (I agree only if something in the license prevents you from removing them) 2) Click wraps are a no-go in something you maintain? (okay, sure, sounds good) 3) Click wraps are incompatible with some written Debian policy or rules? (I disagree) 4) A lot of Debian maintainers might choose to remove click wraps or not package software with them (I agree)
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:26 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > > since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal > list for advise. In disagreements it often helps to first agree on what the parties disagree on. That way you can put aside the parts you agree on. Maybe this can also help here. In the text below The Notice refers to the citation notice in GNU Parallel version 20210722. Do you believe the original source code of version 20210722 is GPLv3 compliant in your interpretation of the GPLv3? If no: What license (if any) would give you the right to change the software? Do you believe The Notice conflicts with the 4 freedoms of Free Software? If so: please explain how. Do you believe The Notice conflicts with the DFSG? If so: please explain how. Do you believe The Notice breaks scripts - unattended or not? If so: Provide a minimal working example that shows a script actually breaking (don't assume it will break, instead show it actually breaks). Do you believe you can change the source code as much as you want and still call it GNU Parallel? Do you believe you can make significant changes and still call it GNU Parallel? Are you aware that in academia it is tradition to cite research you build upon? Are you aware citations are an important factor for some researchers to have their contract extended? Are you aware that GNU Parallel earlier tried only to have the citation notice in the documentation, but researchers simply did not read this, and thus forgot to cite - not because they did not want to cite, but because they simply were not aware? Are you aware there are plenty of alternatives, if you dislike GNU Parallel (man parallel_alternatives)? /Ole
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote: > To me it would feel similar to a dialog box, where you have to click > "Don't show this again" to continue the first time. This is not that > uncommon in graphical tools, so there is some precedence for this. as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's. (And it is a difference if it is a "Tip of the Day" dialog on a supposed-to-be-used-with the GUI or a license/citation-nagger which is usually run in a script. If you mean those. At least the former provides some advantage to the user, the latter not, just as an starter.) > I find it less than optimal, but if we can find common ground on that, > it would be a compromise I can live with. Hows about only print a decently worded message asking nicely to cite, without the nagging to stdout if the user passes --help? > > /Ole >
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:38 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > : > > I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality: > > Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so. > > If you mean a wrapper similar to this, then that would be a compromise > I can live with: > > if [ -t 2 -a ! -e "$HOME/.citation-run" ] ; then > # Only run if stderr is a terminal (to avoid breaking scripts) > parallel.real --citation > touch "$HOME/.citation-run" > fi > parallel.real "$@" Thats fragil. There is no guarantee that a (system) user has $HOME that it is writable. (Regardin what to do in Debian, maybe its time to resurrect #597050?) -- tobi
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:38 PM Andreas Tille wrote: : > I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality: > Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so. If you mean a wrapper similar to this, then that would be a compromise I can live with: if [ -t 2 -a ! -e "$HOME/.citation-run" ] ; then # Only run if stderr is a terminal (to avoid breaking scripts) parallel.real --citation touch "$HOME/.citation-run" fi parallel.real "$@" By testing if stderr is redirected this should avoid breaking scripts (e.g. cron jobs or similar). To me it would feel similar to a dialog box, where you have to click "Don't show this again" to continue the first time. This is not that uncommon in graphical tools, so there is some precedence for this. I find it less than optimal, but if we can find common ground on that, it would be a compromise I can live with. /Ole
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 06:18:20AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
>
> Can we ship GNU Parallel with a small wrapper that removes the notice?
> Being text-based, it would not modify the software at all. I am
> thinking about something like:
>
> $ echo 'NOTICE: Wanted output.' | perl -pe '{ s/^NOTICE:\s*(.*)/$1/ }'
> Wanted output.
I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality:
Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so.
I did not implemented this since from a user point of view the visible
effect is the same as the patch and the upstream author is probably
similarly (un)happy about it as the patch.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Hi,
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> >
> > If you want to remove the citation notice ...
> > nothing else gives you the right to change it.
Can we ship GNU Parallel with a small wrapper that removes the notice?
Being text-based, it would not modify the software at all. I am
thinking about something like:
$ echo 'NOTICE: Wanted output.' | perl -pe '{ s/^NOTICE:\s*(.*)/$1/ }'
Wanted output.
> Is the FSF aware that upstream had registered "GNU PARALLEL" as trademark, on
> his name? (Though, it is listed as "abandoned", whatever this means. I guess
> it is not valid anymore.) Is upstream aware that "GNU" is a registered
> trademark?
A trademark does not have to be registered in order to be enforceable,
although it makes it easier. Many trademarks are not registered. The
USPTO application for "GNU Parallel" was filed on April 7, 2018 and
abandoned on February 4, 2019. I did not check Danish, EU or WIPO or
US state records.
I find it hard to believe the FSF would agree to the issuance. The
term "GNU" is their word mark (#f4125065) for goods and services in
the international categories 9 ("electronic apparatus and software")
and 16 ("documentation and manuals"). FSF may be able to exercise
additional pressure to prohibit "GNU Parallel" from using the word
"GNU".
Either way, the trademark threat in GNU Parallel's documentation is
explicit and refers to past legal cases: "This principle has even been
tested in court". [1] The author's aggressive stance, as evidenced by
a relatively recent trademark filing, should lead us to proceed with
extreme caution.
(I am one of Debian's trademark delegates, but have no trademark or
legal training. Please consult a competent person before relying on
anything in this message.)
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
[1]
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Hi Andreas, On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:25:29AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal > list for advise. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > (usual disclaimer: IANAL. This below is only are few cents and thought on the matter. Warning, personal opinions incoming!) I don't think we've got a legal/license problem here... For sure (and upstream author seems to ACK this, it seems we'd be allowed to have change as we see fit. I think this a "social" type problem, possiblry the upstream author not really understanding what "GNU" and the Free Software Movements stands for? Or ignoring the 4 Freedoms for own benefit? I had this impression when I read this from the FAQ [1]: > If the goal had been to get more users, then the license would have > been public domain. The FAQ itself seems to be crafted to somehow "disguise" that the citing is optional. As a non-native English speaker, after reading the FAQ, I would have though that this citing is indeed an requirement, not a request. It seems to use morailty obligations as a base argument. [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt (For documentation, upstream says in #915541#72 that it is thought to be optional) Is the FSF aware that upstream had registered "GNU PARALLEL" as trademark, on his name? (Though, it is listed as "abandoned", whatever this means. I guess it is not valid anymore.) Is upstream aware that "GNU" is a registered trademark? I think a pledge to cite is OK, but _requiring_ to run the programm with certain command line options to so is in my books a click-wrap license, even if the authors does claim otherwise, eg. in its FAQs: You need to do _some thing explicitly_ that somehow makes you making a promise, maybe even a contract. So it is natual, that someonoe is going to patch that out sooner or later -- if only to avoid the annoyance As said earlier, there is nothing in the license that require us to keep the pledge, so upstream would be better off for their own interest if the pledge is formulated in a way that noone actually want to go the extra mail to remove the pledge. Maybe carrying such a patch would NOT establish a fork (-- upstream has a Rename (pledge / requirement) on forks in their FAQ; This could or could not end up as effecitvly part of the license. If it is, sure, DFSG allows a different name requirement, but it would certaintly be part of weight on the overall judgment wether we should have the software in Debian at all. However, source package name is "parallel" "GNU parallel", so might we be already ship it renamed... (Parallel alone would IMHO not be trademarkable, as it is a common word and the parallel existed as tool already before GNU parallel...) and removing GNU Parallel from the rest can be easily done, if upstream prefers that. In my experience its not good to do against the wish of an upstream author. That does not mean that we should follow his request either. My 2 cents: Possibly this GNU parallel should not be part of Debian, due to the bitter taste this discussion leaves, but it has reverse dependcies, so not really an option. I dont think that shipping the software in non-free would service Debian and its users as well: We'd still have to track down all reverse (build-) depdencies (if and worst case put them to contrib, if patching is not possible. So I guess I'd just patch and if upstream complains rename the project from "GNU parallel" to just "parallel". Possibly somewhere is a fork already, didnt check. Then switching to this fork would be an option as well. Regarding the arguments upstream brings about the DFSG. Instead of rebuting them individually let me just quote some sentences of DSFG FAQ: > "The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to articulate > our > criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means that if you think you've > found a loophole in the DFSG then you don't quite understand how this works." > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Ole Tange wrote: > > Ian Turner wrote: > > > On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > If the revised wording (from version 20141022 to version 20210722) > > does not change your opinion, I feel the only compromise that is > > acceptable to all the active parties is to keep the citation notice > > even if this means moving the software from main to non-free. I dont think that is an acceptable "compromise to all the active parties", as it seems to leave out the interests of our users. #884793. IMHO a compromise could be to the citation "request" in the documentation, like the example given in the DFSG FAQ. Remove the urge that people want to patch something out and it won't. - tobi
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Hi, since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal list for advise. Kind regards Andreas. On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Ole Tange wrote: > Ian Turner wrote: > > On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: > >>I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet. I'm fine > >>with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we > >>should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text. > > > > My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously > > judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed. > > Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision, > > though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best to > > remove it. > > The only license that gives you the right to change the source code is GPLv3. > > #905674 and #915541 refer to the wording of version 20141022. The > current wording (20210722) 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 was not > clear in version 20141022). > > DFSG mentions "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of > the program in a specific field of endeavor", and since the academic > tradition is not part of the license and since the tradition does not > "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of > endeavor", it is hard to see, how you would argue the wording of > version 20210722 does not adhere to DFSG (the wording in 20141022 was > different, and it is this old wording that is the background for > #905674 and referred in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915541#5). > > If your stance is based on reading #905674 I will encourage you to > read the current wording, and argue how the current wording does not > adhere to DFSG. > > If you disagree with Richard M. Stallman's interpretation of GPLv3 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. > > > Citations are what indirectly fund maintaining GNU Parallel (for > details see: > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt). > Before the citation notice was implemented hardly anyone cited GNU > Parallel, and that would not have been sustainable in the long term. > > Therefore it is more important to keep the notice than to be included > in different distributions. Specifically, it will be preferable to be > moved from Debian main to Debian non-free over having the notice > removed (and staying in main). > > In other words: It is preferable having fewer users, who all know they > should cite, over having many users, who do not know they should cite. > > This is because long-term survival with funding is more important than > short-term gains in popularity that can be achieved by being > distributed as part of a distribution. > > If the goal had been to get more users, then the license would have > been public domain. > > > By removing the citation notice you are knowingly making it harder for > me to justify spending time on developing GNU Parallel, and sending a > signal to future developers that Debian does not care about their long > term survival - only short term benefits to the project. I hope we can > agree we want more free software in the future - not less. > > > I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the > > contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project. > > If the revised wording (from version 20141022 to version 20210722) > does not change your opinion, I feel the only compromise that is > acceptable to all the active parties is to keep the citation notice > even if this means moving the software from main to non-free. > > > /Ole > -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Ian Turner wrote: > On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: >>I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet. I'm fine >>with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we >>should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text. > > My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously > judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed. > Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision, > though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best to > remove it. The only license that gives you the right to change the source code is GPLv3. #905674 and #915541 refer to the wording of version 20141022. The current wording (20210722) 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 was not clear in version 20141022). DFSG mentions "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor", and since the academic tradition is not part of the license and since the tradition does not "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor", it is hard to see, how you would argue the wording of version 20210722 does not adhere to DFSG (the wording in 20141022 was different, and it is this old wording that is the background for #905674 and referred in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915541#5). If your stance is based on reading #905674 I will encourage you to read the current wording, and argue how the current wording does not adhere to DFSG. If you disagree with Richard M. Stallman's interpretation of GPLv3 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. Citations are what indirectly fund maintaining GNU Parallel (for details see: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt). Before the citation notice was implemented hardly anyone cited GNU Parallel, and that would not have been sustainable in the long term. Therefore it is more important to keep the notice than to be included in different distributions. Specifically, it will be preferable to be moved from Debian main to Debian non-free over having the notice removed (and staying in main). In other words: It is preferable having fewer users, who all know they should cite, over having many users, who do not know they should cite. This is because long-term survival with funding is more important than short-term gains in popularity that can be achieved by being distributed as part of a distribution. If the goal had been to get more users, then the license would have been public domain. By removing the citation notice you are knowingly making it harder for me to justify spending time on developing GNU Parallel, and sending a signal to future developers that Debian does not care about their long term survival - only short term benefits to the project. I hope we can agree we want more free software in the future - not less. > I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the > contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project. If the revised wording (from version 20141022 to version 20210722) does not change your opinion, I feel the only compromise that is acceptable to all the active parties is to keep the citation notice even if this means moving the software from main to non-free. /Ole
Bug#915541: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Good day, Andreas Tille, on 2021-08-28: > Thanks for the patch. I'll upload this soon. I noticed a CITATIONS file at the root of the source code, which might contain information suitable for debian/upstream/metadata. I suppose it would be fair to reference Ole's work appropriately as we do for the other publications. Hope this helps, :) -- Étienne Mollier Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#915541: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 10:00:12PM +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote: > Andreas Tille, on 2021-08-28: > > Thanks for the patch. I'll upload this soon. > > I noticed a CITATIONS file at the root of the source code, which > might contain information suitable for debian/upstream/metadata. > I suppose it would be fair to reference Ole's work appropriately > as we do for the other publications. > > Hope this helps, :) Thanks for the good hint - done. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Thanks for the patch. I'll upload this soon.
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 01:48:56PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> Thanks Andreas.
>
> On 8/28/21 12:57 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Patches are always welcome.
>
> Attached is a patch that removes all mentions of the --bibtex or --citation
> parameters, or demands for 1 EUR, throughout the codebase. It includes
> the patch you already committed, so it should serve as a drop-in
> replacement.
>
> I would also like to say to Ole that I hope you can understand that this is
> not personal in any way.
>
> Ian
>
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.dash b/src/env_parallel.dash
> index 0674942..878edc6 100755
> --- a/src/env_parallel.dash
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.dash
> @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ _parset_main() {
> echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel;
> echo
> echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for
> publication"
> - echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
> + echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
> echo
> return 255
> fi
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.ksh b/src/env_parallel.ksh
> index 73dcf8b..746c989 100755
> --- a/src/env_parallel.ksh
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.ksh
> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ _parset_main() {
> echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel;
> echo
> echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for
> publication"
> - echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
> + echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
> echo
> return 255
> fi
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.pod b/src/env_parallel.pod
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index 57c7d54..d67c7f4
> --- a/src/env_parallel.pod
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.pod
> @@ -800,9 +800,6 @@ When using GNU B for a publication please
> cite:
> O. Tange (2018): GNU Parallel 2018, March 2018, ISBN 9781387509881,
> DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1146014.
>
> -This helps funding further development; and it won't cost you a cent.
> -If you pay 1 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
> -
> Copyright (C) 2007-10-18 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
>
> Copyright (C) 2008-2010 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.sh b/src/env_parallel.sh
> index 0f584ba..ba0e89d 100755
> --- a/src/env_parallel.sh
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.sh
> @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ _parset_main() {
> echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel;
> echo
> echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for
> publication"
> - echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
> + echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
> echo
> return 255
> fi
> diff --git a/src/env_parallel.zsh b/src/env_parallel.zsh
> index 54001c6..a0592c9 100755
> --- a/src/env_parallel.zsh
> +++ b/src/env_parallel.zsh
> @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ _parset_main() {
> echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel;
> echo
> echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for
> publication"
> - echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
> + echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
> echo
> return 255
> fi
> diff --git a/src/parallel b/src/parallel
> index d2f0396..d8288ed 100755
> --- a/src/parallel
> +++ b/src/parallel
> @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ sub options_hash() {
># Before changing this line, please read
>#
> https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
>#
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt
> - "bibtex|citation" => \$opt::citation,
> +# "bibtex|citation" => \$opt::citation,
>"wc|willcite|will-cite|nn|nonotice|no-notice" => \$opt::willcite,
># Termination and retries
>"halt-on-error|halt=s" => \$opt::halt,
> @@ -1764,10 +1764,10 @@ sub parse_options(@) {
> # Before changing this line, please read
> #
> https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
> #
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt
> -if(defined $opt::citation) {
> - citation(\@argv_before,\@ARGV);
> - wait_and_exit(0);
> -}
> +#if(defined $opt::citation) {
> +#citation(\@argv_before,\@ARGV);
> +#wait_and_exit(0);
> +#}
> # no-* overrides *
> if($opt::nokeeporder) { $opt::keeporder = undef; }
>
> @@ -2117,7 +2117,7 @@ sub parse_options(@) {
> #
> # If you want GNU Parallel to be maintained in the future you
> # should keep this line.
> -citation_notice();
> +#citation_notice();
> # Seriously: _YOU_ will be harming free software by removing the
> # notice. _YOU_ make it harder to justify spending time developing
> # it. If you *do* remove the line, please email
> @@ -5058,9 +5058,9 @@ sub usage() {
># Before changing this
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Thanks Andreas.
On 8/28/21 12:57 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
Patches are always welcome.
Attached is a patch that removes all mentions of the --bibtex or
--citation parameters, or demands for 1 EUR, throughout the
codebase. It includes the patch you already committed, so it should
serve as a drop-in replacement.
I would also like to say to Ole that I hope you can understand that this
is not personal in any way.
Ian
diff --git a/src/env_parallel.dash b/src/env_parallel.dash
index 0674942..878edc6 100755
--- a/src/env_parallel.dash
+++ b/src/env_parallel.dash
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ _parset_main() {
echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel;
echo
echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication"
- echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
+ echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
echo
return 255
fi
diff --git a/src/env_parallel.ksh b/src/env_parallel.ksh
index 73dcf8b..746c989 100755
--- a/src/env_parallel.ksh
+++ b/src/env_parallel.ksh
@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ _parset_main() {
echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel;
echo
echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication"
- echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
+ echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
echo
return 255
fi
diff --git a/src/env_parallel.pod b/src/env_parallel.pod
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
index 57c7d54..d67c7f4
--- a/src/env_parallel.pod
+++ b/src/env_parallel.pod
@@ -800,9 +800,6 @@ When using GNU B for a publication please cite:
O. Tange (2018): GNU Parallel 2018, March 2018, ISBN 9781387509881,
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1146014.
-This helps funding further development; and it won't cost you a cent.
-If you pay 1 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.
-
Copyright (C) 2007-10-18 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
Copyright (C) 2008-2010 Ole Tange, http://ole.tange.dk
diff --git a/src/env_parallel.sh b/src/env_parallel.sh
index 0f584ba..ba0e89d 100755
--- a/src/env_parallel.sh
+++ b/src/env_parallel.sh
@@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ _parset_main() {
echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel;
echo
echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication"
- echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
+ echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
echo
return 255
fi
diff --git a/src/env_parallel.zsh b/src/env_parallel.zsh
index 54001c6..a0592c9 100755
--- a/src/env_parallel.zsh
+++ b/src/env_parallel.zsh
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ _parset_main() {
echo "Web site: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel;
echo
echo "When using programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for publication"
- echo "please cite as described in 'parallel --citation'."
+ echo "please cite as described in the manpage."
echo
return 255
fi
diff --git a/src/parallel b/src/parallel
index d2f0396..d8288ed 100755
--- a/src/parallel
+++ b/src/parallel
@@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ sub options_hash() {
# Before changing this line, please read
# https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
# https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt
- "bibtex|citation" => \$opt::citation,
+# "bibtex|citation" => \$opt::citation,
"wc|willcite|will-cite|nn|nonotice|no-notice" => \$opt::willcite,
# Termination and retries
"halt-on-error|halt=s" => \$opt::halt,
@@ -1764,10 +1764,10 @@ sub parse_options(@) {
# Before changing this line, please read
# https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
# https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt
-if(defined $opt::citation) {
- citation(\@argv_before,\@ARGV);
- wait_and_exit(0);
-}
+#if(defined $opt::citation) {
+# citation(\@argv_before,\@ARGV);
+# wait_and_exit(0);
+#}
# no-* overrides *
if($opt::nokeeporder) { $opt::keeporder = undef; }
@@ -2117,7 +2117,7 @@ sub parse_options(@) {
#
# If you want GNU Parallel to be maintained in the future you
# should keep this line.
-citation_notice();
+#citation_notice();
# Seriously: _YOU_ will be harming free software by removing the
# notice. _YOU_ make it harder to justify spending time developing
# it. If you *do* remove the line, please email
@@ -5058,9 +5058,9 @@ sub usage() {
# Before changing this line, please read
# https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
# https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt
- "This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.",
- "If you pay 1 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.",
- "",
+# "This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.",
+# "If you pay 1 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing.",
+# "",
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote: > My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously > judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed. > > Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision, > though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best to > remove it. I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the > contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project. I'm also not convinced absolutely. I was just mentioning that upstream seems to have noticed our (may be other distributions) patch and added extra comments. So I felt it appropriate to trigger a short discussion about it. > One other thing — I note that the fix to 905674 did not remove these command > line parameters from the manpage, so if you do decide to remove the citation > notice, I would suggest removing it there as well. I am happy to submit a > patch if that would be helpful. Patches are always welcome. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet. I'm fine with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text. My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed. Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision, though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best to remove it. I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project. One other thing — I note that the fix to 905674 did not remove these command line parameters from the manpage, so if you do decide to remove the citation notice, I would suggest removing it there as well. I am happy to submit a patch if that would be helpful. Regards, Ian Turner
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 06:47:51PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote: > Hi Andreas and other maintainers, > > It appears that upload 20210322+ds-1 for package parallel reverts the change > made in NMU upload 20161222-1.1. Is that intentional? I admit it is not intentional and was rather a regression. When trying to update the patch I stumbled upon a change in the code: # Before changing this line, please read # https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice # https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet. I'm fine with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel/-/commit/981b5c5b323943faf4ad5bfff63dff227fa901d9 -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted
Hi Andreas and other maintainers, It appears that upload 20210322+ds-1 for package parallel reverts the change made in NMU upload 20161222-1.1. Is that intentional? Ian Turner
