Funding a free software project is hard. GNU Parallel is no exception.
On top of that it seems the less visible a project is, the harder it
is to get funding. And the nature of GNU Parallel is that it will
never be seen by "the guy with the checkbook", but only by the people
doing the actual work.
This problem has been covered by others - though no solution has been
found: https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer
https://www.numfocus.org/blog/why-is-numpy-only-now-getting-funded/
"Is it alright to compromise or even deliberately ignore the happiness
of the maintainers so that we can enjoy free and open source
software?"
(Slide 8 from: https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer)
Before implementing the citation notice it was discussed with the
users: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg6.html
There is no doubt that this is not an ideal solution, but no one has
so far come up with an ideal solution - neither for funding GNU
Parallel nor other free software.
If you believe you have the perfect solution, you should try it out,
and if it works, you should post it on the email list. Ideas that will
cost work and which have not been tested are, however, unlikely to be
prioritized.
The notice in question:
"""
Academic tradition requires you to cite works you base your article on.
If you use programs that use GNU Parallel to process data for an article in a
scientific publication, please cite:
@book{tange_ole_2018_1146014,
author = {Tange, Ole},
title= {GNU Parallel 2018},
publisher= {Ole Tange},
month= Mar,
year = 2018,
ISBN = {9781387509881},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.1146014},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1146014}
}
(Feel free to use \nocite{tange_ole_2018_1146014})
This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.
If you pay 1 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without
citing.
More about funding GNU Parallel and the citation notice:
https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#Citation-notice
If you send a copy of your published article to ta...@gnu.org, it will
be
mentioned in the release notes of next version of GNU Parallel.
"""
As you can see the citation notice is carefully worded so that it is
not a legal requirement. It was revised in collaboration with RMS to
make sure it was compatible with GPLv3. The notice does not deny users
the ability to use the software as they wish, for whatever purpose
they wish, without payment. It does, however, make it clear what the
wishes of the author are.
There have been rumours that the citation notice broke scripts, but
these rumours have never been backed up by evidence - so an actual
MCVE has never been shown.
As long as we have not found the perfect way of earning a living from
free software, we should try out as many methods as possible. Some
will try one method, and others will try another. If we find a way to
pay my salary I will be happy to remove the notice. And if we manage
to find a general way to fund development of free software, a lot more
developers will be happy, and we will be able to put Nadia Eghbal's
quote in the past:
"Is it alright to compromise or even deliberately ignore the happiness
of the maintainers so that we can enjoy free and open source
software?"
/Ole
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Rogério Brito wrote:
> Dear Ole (and others potentially interested in having GNU Parallel in
> Debian's and derivatives' repositories),
>
> I don't know if you have been following the emails on the Debian BTS
> regarding GNU Parallel having restrictions regardings its distribution etc.
>
> Since this issue has surfaced itself once again, but now in a more intense
> manner, I believe that, if you have not yet been informed, you may want to
> give your opinion (and I will decide how I should follow my maintainership
> within the constraints of your software and the contraints of Debian).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rogério Brito...
>
> On Aug 08 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> Actually, it seems to me it's not even distributable.
>>
>> The wording sounds like a requirement rather than something non-mandatory --
>> reinforced by providing the alternative of paying €1. Yet the license
>> is GPL3+, which expressly forbids additional fees. This is even described
>> in FSF's GPL FAQ:
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation
>>
>> Thus, the copyright holder can distribute this software, but no one else
>> can.
>>
>> As the requirement is not a part of the license, we could just remove the
>> demand nagware from the code. But alas, the upstream (Ole Tange) threatened
>> legal action if you do so without renaming the package. And it doesn't seem
>> to be just hot wind, as he registered it: US trademark number 87867112,
>> filed Apr 07, 2018.
>>
>> Multiple people tried persuading the upstream to drop this
