[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.