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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
"Ole asked you to cite him if you use it. So, if you publish academically, either don't use it or cite him."
Why? Whether something has contributed meaningfully to my research is my decision, not Ole's. Not having light "hinders my science", so I'll be sure to cite Edison on all my papers.
I agree with the sibling commentator that Ole's behavior is jerkish. Not because he asked for citations, but that he misleads users by claiming his request is standard, when it is decidedly not. He also obfuscates the voluntary nature of his request as much as possible, to make it seem like citing is a legal requirement. And he is inflammatory in responding to people who make the perfectly valid decision to not cite him, or to patch the notice out.
> GNU parallel wants to treat it like a requirement of using the software
I have never felt this, and that is not how FOSS works. By definition, they cannot restrict how you use the software. Thus, the citation request is just a request. Hypothetically, you could slander and ruin the author's life (the extreme polar opposite of a citation) and still freely use the software.
This is no different than an author asking users to retweet, post on reddit, etc. Certainly it may be annoying to some, but it does not restrict how you may use or fork the software.
One could fork GNU parallel to remove the copyright, and let the democratic public user base vote on whether they care enough to use your fork, or if they think you (or the other author) are an asshole, etc.
Not once in that 2000-word rant does Ole outright state that citation is entirely voluntary, and not a condition of the license. Instead, he describes the notice's "GPLv3 compatibility" in a way that incorrectly states you must either respect the license notice or treat the software as it is not open-source. He also responds with vitriol to people who do choose to fork his software, as evidenced here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905674
I wouldn't have a problem with the program's current behavior if it simply made you type 'i understand' instead of 'will cite', and made clear that it was a non-binding request. As is, the program attempts to sound like a license agreement while Ole insists to maintainers it is not.
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.
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.
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...
Ole's citations took off roughly coincident with this behavior being added: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=D7I0K34AAAAJ... (click "Cited By" and notice the bar chart).