Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1068944 > unrolled thread

Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted Ole Tange <tange@gnu.org> - 2021-08-30 08:20 +0200
    Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2021-08-30 08:30 +0200
      Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> - 2021-08-30 12:40 +0200
      Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2021-08-30 15:20 +0200
        Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> - 2021-08-30 16:00 +0200
          Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Ole Tange <tange@gnu.org> - 2021-08-30 19:50 +0200
            Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> - 2021-08-31 08:50 +0200
            Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> - 2021-08-31 09:00 +0200
              Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-09-03 16:50 +0200
                Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> - 2021-09-03 17:00 +0200
                  Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2021-09-03 17:10 +0200
      Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has  been reverted Ole Tange <tange@gnu.org> - 2021-08-31 20:40 +0200

#1068944 — Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

Ian Turner <vectro@vectro.org> wrote:
> On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet.  I'm fine
>>with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we
>>should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text.
>
> My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously
> judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed.
> Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision,
> though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best to
> remove it.

The only license that gives you the right to change the source code is GPLv3.

#905674 and #915541 refer to the wording of version 20141022. The
current wording (20210722) 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 (this was not
clear in version 20141022).

DFSG mentions "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of
the program in a specific field of endeavor", and since the academic
tradition is not part of the license and since the tradition does not
"restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of
endeavor", it is hard to see, how you would argue the wording of
version 20210722 does not adhere to DFSG (the wording in 20141022 was
different, and it is this old wording that is the background for
#905674 and referred in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915541#5).

If your stance is based on reading #905674 I will encourage you to
read the current wording, and argue how the current wording does not
adhere to DFSG.

If you disagree with Richard M. Stallman's interpretation of GPLv3 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.


Citations are what indirectly fund maintaining GNU Parallel (for
details see: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt).
Before the citation notice was implemented hardly anyone cited GNU
Parallel, and that would not have been sustainable in the long term.

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.


By removing the citation notice you are knowingly making it harder for
me to justify spending time on developing GNU Parallel, and sending a
signal to future developers that Debian does not care about their long
term survival - only short term benefits to the project. I hope we can
agree we want more free software in the future - not less.

> I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the
> contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project.

If the revised wording (from version 20141022 to version 20210722)
does not change your opinion, I feel the only compromise that is
acceptable to all the active parties is to keep the citation notice
even if this means moving the software from main to non-free.


/Ole

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1068945 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

Hi,

since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal
list for advise.

Kind regards

     Andreas.

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> Ian Turner <vectro@vectro.org> wrote:
> > On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >>I updated the patch in Git[1] but did not yet activate it yet.  I'm fine
> >>with uploading parallel with the patch activated if you really think we
> >>should disrespect the wish of the author and insist on plain GPL text.
> >
> > My reading of bug 905674 is that the citation notice has been previously
> > judged to be incompatible with the DFSG and that's why it was removed.
> > Also ultimately Debian developers will have to make their own decision,
> > though if you are asking my personal opinion, I think it would be best to
> > remove it.
> 
> The only license that gives you the right to change the source code is GPLv3.
> 
> #905674 and #915541 refer to the wording of version 20141022. The
> current wording (20210722) 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 (this was not
> clear in version 20141022).
> 
> DFSG mentions "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of
> the program in a specific field of endeavor", and since the academic
> tradition is not part of the license and since the tradition does not
> "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of
> endeavor", it is hard to see, how you would argue the wording of
> version 20210722 does not adhere to DFSG (the wording in 20141022 was
> different, and it is this old wording that is the background for
> #905674 and referred in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915541#5).
> 
> If your stance is based on reading #905674 I will encourage you to
> read the current wording, and argue how the current wording does not
> adhere to DFSG.
> 
> If you disagree with Richard M. Stallman's interpretation of GPLv3 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.
> 
> 
> Citations are what indirectly fund maintaining GNU Parallel (for
> details see: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt).
> Before the citation notice was implemented hardly anyone cited GNU
> Parallel, and that would not have been sustainable in the long term.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> By removing the citation notice you are knowingly making it harder for
> me to justify spending time on developing GNU Parallel, and sending a
> signal to future developers that Debian does not care about their long
> term survival - only short term benefits to the project. I hope we can
> agree we want more free software in the future - not less.
> 
> > I am among those not persuaded by Ole's arguments to the
> > contrary, in the specific context of the Debian project.
> 
> If the revised wording (from version 20141022 to version 20210722)
> does not change your opinion, I feel the only compromise that is
> acceptable to all the active parties is to keep the citation notice
> even if this means moving the software from main to non-free.
> 
> 
> /Ole
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1068971 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

Hi Andreas, 

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:25:29AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal
> list for advise.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>      Andreas.
>


(usual disclaimer: IANAL. This below is only are few cents and thought on the
matter. Warning, personal opinions incoming!)

I don't think we've got a legal/license problem here... For sure (and upstream
author seems to ACK this, it seems we'd be allowed to have change as we
see fit.

I think this a "social" type problem, possiblry the upstream author
not really understanding what "GNU" and the Free Software Movements stands for?
Or ignoring the 4 Freedoms for own benefit? I had this impression when I read
this from the FAQ [1]:

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

The FAQ itself seems to be crafted to somehow "disguise" that the citing is
optional. As a non-native English speaker, after reading the FAQ, I would have
though that this citing is indeed an requirement, not a request. It seems to
use morailty obligations as a base argument.

[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt

(For documentation, upstream says in #915541#72 that it is thought to be optional)

Is the FSF aware that upstream had registered "GNU PARALLEL" as trademark, on
his name?  (Though, it is listed as "abandoned", whatever this means. I guess
it is not valid anymore.) Is upstream aware that "GNU" is a registered
trademark?

I think a pledge to cite is OK, but _requiring_ to run the programm with
certain command line options to so is in my books a click-wrap license, even if
the authors does claim otherwise, eg. in its FAQs: You need to do _some thing
explicitly_ that somehow makes you making a promise, maybe even a contract. So
it is natual, that someonoe is going to patch that out sooner or later -- if only
to avoid the annoyance  As said earlier, there is nothing in the license that
require us to keep the pledge, so upstream would be better off for their own
interest if the pledge is formulated in a way that noone actually want to go the
extra mail to remove the pledge.

Maybe carrying such a patch would NOT establish a fork (-- upstream has a
Rename (pledge / requirement) on forks in their FAQ; This could or could not
end up as effecitvly part of the license. If it is, sure, DFSG allows a
different name requirement, but it would certaintly be part of weight on the
overall judgment wether we should have the software in Debian at all.
However, source package name  is "parallel" "GNU parallel", so might we be
already ship it renamed... (Parallel alone would IMHO not be trademarkable, as
it is a common word and the parallel existed as tool already before GNU
parallel...) and removing GNU Parallel from the rest can be easily done, if
upstream prefers that.

In my experience its not good to do against the wish of an upstream author.
That does not mean that we should follow his request either.

My 2 cents: Possibly this GNU parallel should not be part of Debian, due to the
bitter taste this discussion leaves, but it has reverse dependcies, so not
really an option.

I dont think that shipping the software in non-free would service Debian and its
users as well: We'd still have to track down all reverse (build-) depdencies (if
and worst case put them to contrib, if patching is not possible.

So I guess I'd just patch and if upstream complains rename the project from
"GNU parallel" to just "parallel". Possibly somewhere is a fork already, didnt
check. Then switching to this fork would be an option as well.

Regarding the arguments upstream brings about the DFSG. Instead of rebuting them
individually  let me just quote some sentences of DSFG FAQ:

> "The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to articulate our
> criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means that if you think you've
> found a loophole in the DFSG then you don't quite understand how this works."


> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> > Ian Turner <vectro@vectro.org> wrote:
> > > On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > 
> > If the revised wording (from version 20141022 to version 20210722)
> > does not change your opinion, I feel the only compromise that is
> > acceptable to all the active parties is to keep the citation notice
> > even if this means moving the software from main to non-free.

I dont think that is an acceptable "compromise to all the active parties", as
it seems to leave out the interests of our users. #884793.

IMHO a compromise could be to the citation "request" in the documentation,
like the example given in the DFSG FAQ. Remove the urge that people want
to patch something out and it won't.

</my2cents>

- 
tobi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1068987 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

Hi,

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> >
> > If you want to remove the citation notice ...
> > nothing else gives you the right to change it.

Can we ship GNU Parallel with a small wrapper that removes the notice?
Being text-based, it would not modify the software at all. I am
thinking about something like:

$ echo 'NOTICE: Wanted output.' | perl -pe '{ s/^NOTICE:\s*(.*)/$1/ }'
Wanted output.

> Is the FSF aware that upstream had registered "GNU PARALLEL" as trademark, on
> his name?  (Though, it is listed as "abandoned", whatever this means. I guess
> it is not valid anymore.) Is upstream aware that "GNU" is a registered
> trademark?

A trademark does not have to be registered in order to be enforceable,
although it makes it easier. Many trademarks are not registered. The
USPTO application for "GNU Parallel" was filed on April 7, 2018 and
abandoned on February 4, 2019. I did not check Danish, EU or WIPO or
US state records.

I find it hard to believe the FSF would agree to the issuance. The
term "GNU" is their word mark (#f4125065) for goods and services in
the international categories 9 ("electronic apparatus and software")
and 16 ("documentation and manuals"). FSF may be able to exercise
additional pressure to prohibit "GNU Parallel" from using the word
"GNU".

Either way, the trademark threat in GNU Parallel's documentation is
explicit and refers to past legal cases: "This principle has even been
tested in court". [1] The author's aggressive stance, as evidenced by
a relatively recent trademark filing, should lead us to proceed with
extreme caution.

(I am one of Debian's trademark delegates, but have no trademark or
legal training. Please consult a competent person before relying on
anything in this message.)

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1068993 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 06:18:20AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> 
> Can we ship GNU Parallel with a small wrapper that removes the notice?
> Being text-based, it would not modify the software at all. I am
> thinking about something like:
> 
> $ echo 'NOTICE: Wanted output.' | perl -pe '{ s/^NOTICE:\s*(.*)/$1/ }'
> Wanted output.

I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality:
Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so.

I did not implemented this since from a user point of view the visible
effect is the same as the patch and the upstream author is probably
similarly (un)happy about it as the patch.

Kind regards

    Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1069020 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:38 PM Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> wrote:
:
> I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality:
> Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so.

If you mean a wrapper similar to this, then that would be a compromise
I can live with:

if [ -t 2 -a ! -e "$HOME/.citation-run" ] ; then
  # Only run if stderr is a terminal (to avoid breaking scripts)
  parallel.real --citation
  touch "$HOME/.citation-run"
fi
parallel.real "$@"

By testing if stderr is redirected this should avoid breaking scripts
(e.g. cron jobs or similar).

To me it would feel similar to a dialog box, where you have to click
"Don't show this again" to continue the first time. This is not that
uncommon in graphical tools, so there is some precedence for this.

I find it less than optimal, but if we can find common ground on that,
it would be a compromise I can live with.


/Ole

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1069087 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:38 PM Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> wrote:
> :
> > I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality:
> > Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so.
> 
> If you mean a wrapper similar to this, then that would be a compromise
> I can live with:
> 
> if [ -t 2 -a ! -e "$HOME/.citation-run" ] ; then
>   # Only run if stderr is a terminal (to avoid breaking scripts)
>   parallel.real --citation
>   touch "$HOME/.citation-run"
> fi
> parallel.real "$@"

Thats fragil.
There is no guarantee that a (system) user has $HOME that it is writable.




(Regardin what to do in Debian, maybe its time to resurrect #597050?)

-- 
tobi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1069089 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> To me it would feel similar to a dialog box, where you have to click
> "Don't show this again" to continue the first time. This is not that
> uncommon in graphical tools, so there is some precedence for this.

as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's.

(And it is a difference if it is a "Tip of the Day" dialog on a supposed-to-be-used-with the GUI
or a license/citation-nagger which is usually run in a script.
If you mean those. At least the former provides some advantage to the user, the
latter not, just as an starter.)
 
> I find it less than optimal, but if we can find common ground on that,
> it would be a compromise I can live with.

Hows about only print a decently worded message asking nicely to cite, without the
nagging to stdout if the user passes --help?
 
> 
> /Ole
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1069614 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

>>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> writes:

    Tobias> as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's.
By this dxo you mean

1) clip wraps are incompatible with the DFSG?  (I agree only if
something in the license prevents you from removing them)

2) Click wraps are a no-go in something you maintain?  (okay, sure,
sounds good)

3) Click wraps are incompatible with some written Debian policy or
rules?  (I disagree)

4) A lot of Debian maintainers might choose to remove click wraps or not
package software with them (I agree)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1069616 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 08:44:49AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> writes:
> 
>     Tobias> as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's.
> By this dxo you mean
> 
> 1) clip wraps are incompatible with the DFSG?  (I agree only if
> something in the license prevents you from removing them)
> 
> 2) Click wraps are a no-go in something you maintain?  (okay, sure,
> sounds good)
> 
> 3) Click wraps are incompatible with some written Debian policy or
> rules?  (I disagree)
> 
> 4) A lot of Debian maintainers might choose to remove click wraps or not
> package software with them (I agree)

1, 2 and 4 ;-)

But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU parallel
would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though.
(my 2 cents...)

-- 
tobi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1069619 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> wrote:
>
> But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU parallel
> would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
> The status quo is likely to mke our users sad, though.

Maybe the debconf system can provide a choice? The default could be
consistent with Debian's standards.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1069203 — Re: Bug#915541: Removal of upstream "--will-cite" functionality has been reverted

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:26 AM Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
>
> since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal
> list for advise.

In disagreements it often helps to first agree on what the parties
disagree on. That way you can put aside the parts you agree on. Maybe
this can also help here.

In the text below The Notice refers to the citation notice in GNU
Parallel version 20210722.

Do you believe the original source code of version 20210722 is GPLv3
compliant in your interpretation of the GPLv3? If no: What license (if
any) would give you the right to change the software?

Do you believe The Notice conflicts with the 4 freedoms of Free
Software? If so: please explain how.

Do you believe The Notice conflicts with the DFSG? If so: please explain how.

Do you believe The Notice breaks scripts - unattended or not? If so:
Provide a minimal working example that shows a script actually
breaking (don't assume it will break, instead show it actually
breaks).

Do you believe you can change the source code as much as you want and
still call it GNU Parallel? Do you believe you can make significant
changes and still call it GNU Parallel?

Are you aware that in academia it is tradition to cite research you build upon?

Are you aware citations are an important factor for some researchers
to have their contract extended?

Are you aware that GNU Parallel earlier tried only to have the
citation notice in the documentation, but researchers simply did not
read this, and thus forgot to cite - not because they did not want to
cite, but because they simply were not aware?

Are you aware there are plenty of alternatives, if you dislike GNU
Parallel (man parallel_alternatives)?


/Ole

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web