[Matl]

If you're a startup and relicensing previously open source code under a restrictive license or doing other shady things you'll get plenty of defenders to line up to say 'hey, they have to make a living somehow', but if a single guy tries to make a living via a simple message in a widely used program all hell breaks loose.

What gives?

[electroly]

Notably, GNU Parallel did not relicense; it's still GPL. The author wants to have his cake (gain the popularity benefits of being a GPL-licensed GNU tool, be able to carpetbomb Stack Overflow with "use GNU Parallel" answers, etc.) and eat it too (get people to cite or pay him as a condition of using the product). Since this isn't possible (GPL doesn't allow additional restrictions), but the author still really wants it, he went the route of making the extra condition non-legally-binding but then getting publicly upset at people for using the product under its actual license. That's the part that GNU Parallel is doing that people don't like, and that other projects are not doing.

The startups you mention actually changed their license. That's what GNU Parallel would have to do to make this extra condition ok, but he won't do it because being a GPL-licensed GNU tool is critical to its popularity in the first place.

[dehrmann]

So if it's GPL, I can remove the citation bits, release it under the GPL as free-parallel, and everything's OK?

[electroly]

Yes. The GPL explicitly says this about "further restrictions":

> If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

However, this doesn't really even come into play because the citation request is not a restriction on the license. It's not anything. As far as the GPL is concerned, it's just some code, and the GPL grants you the right to redistribute modified copies.

And by renaming it to "free-parallel" you have respected the author's trademark. You can absolutely do this, at the cost of the author being upset at you. They might get upset that "free-parallel" is too close to their "GNU Parallel" trademark but I (IANAL) don't think they'd be legally right about that. GNU Parallel coexists with other software called "parallel".

[depaulagu]

Yep: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...

[Atotalnoob]

Shouldn't gnu put a stop to this?

[electroly]

They ensured that the citation request was not actually an additional requirement and has no legal meaning. Beyond that, GNU's interests are better served by retaining GNU Parallel as a GPL-licensed GNU product than by losing it to another organization or another license. I wouldn't expect movement from GNU beyond their existing acknowledgement that the citation request is not a legal requirement and does not modify the GPL. In any event, GNU tends to be hands-off on contributed packages (i.e. the ones that Stallman wasn't involved in writing).

[dahart]

I think there’s a reasonable question in there, but I don’t agree with this framing. Shady relicensing isn’t legal, and it doesn’t matter if there are armchair defenders. But, Ole does have defenders, so it’s not one-sided.

Part of the issue is that Ole’s citation notice doesn’t appear at first glance to some people to be compatible with the GPL. You have to read the language carefully, and read the history of GNU Parallel’s citation notice, to understand that the notice is not a licensing term.

Another part of the issue is that the notice doesn’t sound like someone just trying to make a living. It sounds like a demand or even a veiled threat, and one that is inflicted on everyone, not just academics. It’s not exactly clear about what the legal requirements even are.

I’m in favor of Ole getting citations, and I’m in favor of his right to ask. But the way it’s being asked for rubs me the wrong way a little bit, and it’s rubbed other people the wrong way a little bit ever since it was introduced. BTW, the whole reason it seems like all hell breaks loose, and the only reason this matters is precisely because the software is widely used. If it wasn’t widely used and it didn’t sit under the GNU umbrella, you’d never hear about this.

[lolinder]

I had no opinion until I read through the patch that Arch uses to remove the notice [0]. The creator comes across as whiny, entitled, and aggressive. They have comments in the source like "You accept to be put in a public hall-of-shame by removing the lines", "YOU will be harming free software by removing the notice", and "That includes you, George and Andreas". The whole thing is pretty unprofessional, and based on the false premise that every tool used during research traditionally gets a citation.

[0] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/pa...

[akerl_]

You'll note there are also plenty of "defenders" on this page. It turns out the community is made up of people with a wide range of opinions.

[Matl]

Of course, but HN does tend to have a lot more patience for scrappy startups that scrappy lone, non-commercial devs from what I can observe.

The question was rhetorical, I know that this place is frequented by quite a lot of people who wish to be part of the next YC batch, so they see themselves in the shoes of the startup, rather than the solo dev.

Still, I don't think it should be this way.

[akerl_]

I'm saying I don't think it is that way. I think you're seeing through the lens of your expectations. dang has written about this at length, but the gist is that it's very easy and tempting to see posts you disagree with more visibly and feel them more viscerally than posts you agree with.

[ilyt]

>Of course, but HN does tend to have a lot more patience for scrappy startups

Look what parent company of HN does

[smcleod]

I could be wrong here and this is the first I’ve heard of this but I suspect it’s the language / way he goes about communicating. On the surface at least it comes across as a little annoying / demanding, things like him having a website where he shames people that don’t cite him by name, I suspect the ‘legal’ claims being made aren’t that solid either. Don’t get me wrong it’s a neat tool - but it’s just one in a huge ecosystem of many people’s efforts.

[542458]

> I suspect the ‘legal’ claims being made aren’t that solid either

Section 7 of the GPL specifically says that additional restrictive terms on GPL software (like “pay me $1000 or cite me”) can be ignored or removed. If the software’s author doesn’t want people to remove his additional terms he shouldn’t have used the GPL. Publicly shaming other open source contributions for doing something that the GPL explicitly and deliberately permits (removing additional restrictive terms) is extremely improper in my opinion.