|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ferret7446
1195 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
Right, and that's what the rest of my sentence was meant to convey. However, the author goes to great extent to obfuscate this fact, as this faq demonstrates: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...
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.