parallel/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt

=== Citation FAQ ===

== Why does GNU Parallel show a citation notice? ==

GNU Parallel is indirectly funded through citations.

GNU Parallel is funded by me having a paid job that allows for
maintaining GNU Parallel. This is much easier to get if GNU Parallel
is cited in scientific journals, and history has shown that
researchers forget to do this if the notice is only put in the
documentation.

It is therefore crucial for the long-term survival of GNU Parallel
that it is cited. The citation notice makes users aware of this.

See also: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.html

The funding of free software is hard. There does not seem to be a
single solution that just works:

* https://stackoverflow.blog/2021/01/07/open-source-has-a-funding-problem/
* https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTsc1m78BUk
* https://web.archive.org/web/20210203105621/https://blog.licensezero.com/2019/08/24/process-of-elimination.html
* https://www.numfocus.org/blog/why-is-numpy-only-now-getting-funded/


== 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.

Therefore the notice is not adding a term that would require citation
as mentioned on:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation

The link only addresses the license and copyright law. It does not
address academic tradition, and the citation notice only refers to
academic tradition.

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.

So: If you do not feel the citation notice adheres to GPLv3, you need
to treat it as software that you have no license to use.


== Do automated scripts break if the notice is not silenced? ==

No. Not a single time has that been demonstrated to happen. This is
due to the notice only being printed, if the output is to the screen -
not if the output is to a file or a pipe.


== How do I silence the citation notice? ==

Run this once:

  parallel --citation

It takes less than 10 seconds to do and is thus comparable to an
'OK. Do not show this again'-dialog box seen in LibreOffice, Firefox
and similar programs.

It is even optional to run this, as GNU Parallel will work without
having 'parallel --citation' run first (in other words it is _not_
comparable to a clickwrap license, that must be accepted before the
program will run). However, not running it does not change that
academic tradition requires you to cite in scientific articles. That
tradition requires you to cite even if there had been no notice.


== I do not write scientific articles. Does the notice apply to me? ==

The notice is only relevant if you write scientific articles.


== What shows citing software is an academic tradition? ==

These links say: Yes, you should cite software, and if the author
suggests a way of citing, use that.

* https://www.force11.org/software-citation-principles (refers to many others)
* https://www.software.ac.uk/blog/2016-09-30-oh-research-software-how-shalt-i-cite-thee
* https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html
* https://libguides.mit.edu/c.php?g=551454&p=3900280
* https://www.software.ac.uk/how-cite-software
* https://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/APA6th/software
* https://library.rgu.ac.uk/RGUvancouver/computer-programmes
* https://journals.aas.org/policy-statement-on-software/
* https://guides.lib.monash.edu/c.php?g=219786&p=1454293
* https://www.maxqda.com/blogpost/how-to-cite-maxqda
* https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/communication/citable/citable-cite.html
* https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/creating-a-repository-on-github/about-citation-files

If you feel the benefit from using GNU Parallel is too small to
warrant a citation, then prove that by simply using another tool. If
you replace your use of GNU Parallel with another tool, you obviously
do not have to cite GNU Parallel. If it is too much work replacing the
use of GNU Parallel, then it is a good indication that the
contribution to the research is big enough to warrant a citation.

The citation is also needed for reproducibility: Let us assume a bug
in GNU Parallel skews the results. People replicating the research
needs to have the information, so they can replicate the (possibly
wrong) results.


== Do other software tools show how to cite? ==

Here are other examples of software showing how to cite. Some of these
refer to peer-reviewed articles - others do not:

* https://scipy.org/citing-scipy/
* https://octave.org/doc/interpreter/Citing-Octave-in-Publications.html
  (Octave has citation for individual packages, too)
* https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-May/161481.html
* https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/utils/html/citation.html
  (R has citation for individual packages, too)
* http://www.partek.com/citing-partek-software-in-a-publication/
* http://www.fluortools.com/misc/cite
* https://www.maxqda.com/blogpost/how-to-cite-maxqda
* https://www.open-mpi.org/papers/
* https://www.tensorflow.org/about/bib
* http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/praat.html
* https://github.com/UnixJunkie/PAR/blob/master/README

The CITATION.cff file format was designed to make it easy to cite
software, and used by a wide range of tools.


== I do not like the notice. Can I fork GNU Parallel and remove it? ==

Yes. GNU Parallel is released under GNU GPLv3 and thus you are allowed
to fork the code. But you have to make sure that your forked version
cannot be confused with the original, so for one thing you cannot call
it anything similar to GNU Parallel as that would cause confusion
between your forked version and the original.

It should be clear to your users, that they are using a fork and that
they should go to you for support and not the GNU Parallel community.

The documentation must also be changed so it cannot be confused with
the documentation for GNU Parallel.

The requirement of avoiding confusion is also why we have CentOS (and
not RedHat Free), and IceCat (and not Firefox Free). This is also
covered in DFSG ("The license may require derived works to carry a
different name or version number from the original software").

This principle has even been tested in court:
http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/GERMANYGeneralPublicLicenseDoesNotPermitUseofThird-PartyTrademarksforAdvertisingModifiedVersionsofOpen-SourceSoftware.aspx
https://www.admody.com/urteilsdatenbank/cafe6fdaeed3/OLG-Duesseldorf_Urteil_vom_28-September-2010_Az_I-20-U-41-09

Please know that if you fork GNU Parallel and remove the notice, you
are not helping to fund further develpment. So if you like GNU
Parallel and do not want to see it wither away like many of the
competitors, then this is a bad idea, as it will lead to less funding.


== How important is the notice for the survival of GNU Parallel? ==

Citations are what indirectly fund maintaining GNU Parallel. Before
the citation notice was implemented hardly anyone cited GNU Parallel,
and that would not have been sustainable in the long term. Funding
development aligns well with "We will give back to the free software
community" and "To accelerate innovation and underpin operations".

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.


== Is there another way I can get rid of the citation notice? ==

Yes. Find a way to finance future development of GNU Parallel. If you
pay me a normal salary, I will be happy to remove the citation notice.

You can also pay to use a specific version, which you will then get
without the citation notice.

The citation notice is about (indirect) funding - nothing else.


== Free software should be funded, but not this way ==

OK. But then please take resposibility and do the funding. Show that
it is indeed possible to fund GNU Parallel in a different way by
actually doing it.

Talk is cheap, and action speaks louder than words. Instead of just
telling others what to do, prove that you are serious and actually
*do* the work.

I will be happy to get a "funding manager" and remove the citation
notice, if that means I can stop worrying about rent, mortgages, bills
and retirement.


== Would it not be hell if all tools showed a citation notice? ==

Most software is not financed through citations, thus this is unlikely
to happen.

You can even get GNU Parallel in a version with the citation notice
silenced and which you do not have to cite: You just have to pay for
it and help finance the development that way.

Many tools require configuration before use, or give you 'OK. Do not
show this again'-dialog boxes until you silence those, so it is not
uncommon, that you have to do a little extra work, when running the
software for the first time.

Running 'parallel --citation' takes less than 10 seconds to run, and
if GNU Parallel does not save you 10 seconds, then you should probably
use a different tool.


== I do not want to cite and do not want to help fund development ==

If you neither want to cite nor fund development, then you should use
another tool.

If you do not want to help fund GNU Parallel, then you will not be a
happy GNU Parallel user, and thus you using another tool is the best
solution for all parties. Here is a list of parallelizing tools to
help you find an alternative:
https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_alternatives.html


== I do not want to run 'parallel --citation' ==

If the inconvenience of running 'parallel --citation' one single time
after installing GNU Parallel is too big, then you do not have to do
it. You only need to do that if you do not want to see the citation
notice.

You can also buy a version with the citation notice silenced.

But it really only takes 10 seconds to run.


== I do not want to see the citation notice at every run ==

You do not have to. Spend 10 seconds on running 'parallel --citation'
and the notice is silenced. This is similar to clicking 'OK. Do not
show this again' in a dialog box seen in Firefox and similar programs.

If GNU Parallel does not save you more than 10 seconds, then you
should probably not be using it anyway.


== I do not want to help finance the development ==

If you care so little about GNU Parallel that you do not want to help
finance development, then you should contemplate whether GNU Parallel
is really the right tool for you. Personally I would prefer if you
simply ignored GNU Parallel and treated it as if it did not exist.

But if you really insist on not helping, it is possible (e.g. by
forking and changing the code; see above). But you will be going
against the wishes of the author, because you make it harder to make a
living, thus you will be making it harder to justify producing more
free software; not only for me, but also for others who see you
actively working against the author's wishes.

If you like GNU Parallel and want to see it maintained in the future,
then this is not the way to go.

Maybe it is you Nadia Eghbal addresses in
https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer:

"Is it alright to compromise, or even deliberately ignore, the
happiness of maintainers so we that can enjoy free and open source
software?"