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 they are not reminded explicitly.

It is therefore important 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://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


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

No. Not a single time has that happened. 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 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://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://libguides.rgu.ac.uk/c.php?g=380081&p=2983956
* https://journals.aas.org/policy-statement-on-software/
* https://guides.lib.monash.edu/c.php?g=219786&p=1454293
* https://www.maxqda.com/how-to-cite-maxqda

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 benefit is
big enough to warrant a citation.


> 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://www.scipy.org/citing.html
* 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/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


> 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. Also documentation
cannot be confused with the documentation for GNU Parallel.  This 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

Also 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 is what indirectly funds 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.

If the goal had been to get more users, then the license would have
been public domain.

This is because a 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.


> 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.

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


> I do not think it is fair having to cite

If the inconvenience of having to cite is too big for you, 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.

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.

It is, however, doable (e.g. by forking and changing the code). 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. 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?"