Bug#905674: GNU Parallel patch
Dear Rogério, > I will update Debian's GNU parallel as soon as I can (before this next > weekend, if I can). Thanks for all your work on this. I was actually not actually aware of this bug until now so apologies for not helping out before. May I ask that you reference this bug in a "Comment:" in debian/ copyright and, if possible, summarise the discussion? If you could explicitly quote Ole (especially "it is optional") then that would clear it up for me unless I'm missing something obvious. This could potentially avoid some second-guessing and other time- sapping hermeneutics that might misinterpret upstream's intentions in the future. > This has been discussed on IRC. On #debian-til which is not the proper > channel, but with at least one FTPmaster present. (As an adjunct remark, I would be very hesitant in making any inference whatsover from (my?) drive-thru comments on IRC.) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#905674: GNU Parallel patch
I will update Debian's GNU parallel as soon as I can (before this next weekend, if I can). Thanks for all the discussion, Rogério. On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:12 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > Control: clone -1 -2 > Control: retitle -2 parallel 20161222-1.1 NMU removes upstream "--will-cite" > functionality > Control: reopen -2 > Control: notfound -2 20161222 > Control: found -2 20161222-1.1 > Control: severity -2 important > > Dear Ole, > > Le lundi, 3 décembre 2018, 18.55:00 h CET Ole Tange a écrit : > > I have noticed that you have submitted a patch and closed this bug: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905674#77 > > > > I am sure you are trying to do what is best for free software. But > > what looks like a good idea in the short run, may be a bad idea in the > > long run. The long term survival of Debian depends on others building > > free software that can be packaged, so destroying these people's > > livelihood is a bad long term strategy. > > > > In the reasoning for the patch you state: > > > Quoting the gpl-faq: > > [... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation ...] > > > > > Therefore, removing this to make parallel GPL-compliant. > > > > I think this is due to a misunderstanding. > > > > Maybe you not aware that Richard M. Stallman together with the GNU > > leaders have cleared the wording and the use of the citation notice, > > and that he sees it as complying fully with GPLv3? > > I was not, but, as Debian Developer, I don't feel bound by RMS' (and "GNU > leaders", whomever this designates) statements about GPLv3. What mattered for > this now-closed bugreport is our DFSG; specifically it's article 1 (emphasis > mine) and 5. > > > DFSG 1: Free Redistribution > > The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or > > giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software > > distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license > > *may not require a royalty or other fee* for such sale. > > > DFSG 5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. > > Le lundi, 3 décembre 2018, 18.55:00 h CET Ole Tange a écrit : > > Your patch therefore does not change the GPLv3-compliancy: The code > > was already compliant. > > I disagree; my understanding is that RMS declared parallel to carry no > problem with regards to GPLv3 compliance in October 2018, probably for the > latest upstream release. > > But Debian ships parallel 20161222 which: > * contains a request for the user to promise academic citation, > * imposes the use of either "--will-cite" or the presence of a > `~.parallel/will-cite`, which makes it unnecessarily burdensome to use > in a scripted manner. > > This is a clear attempt at side-stepping GPLv3 software freedoms by using > guilt-inducting language. As the GPLv3 allows (almost any) modification, I've > just went and did that, also to ensure that src:parallel can stay in the > Debian main archive, where it belongs. > > > But what your patch *does* do, is to make it harder to earn a living > > from developing GNU Parallel and will make it much harder for me to > > justify spending time maintaining GNU Parallel. > > Be careful with such arguments: by merely distributing GNU parallel in its > main archive, Debian is also vastly expanding the availability of GNU > parallel. And if you do insist on getting Debian to rename it, you'll > likely lose any incentive from "renamed GNU parallel" users getting it from > the Debian archive. > > > As Nadia Eghbal puts it 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?" > > > > This describes very well what you are doing with the patch, and I > > refuse to think that was your goal. > > For the record: > * My primary goal was to remove a "Release Critical" bug from Debian's next > stable release, during a Bug Squashing Party; > * While looking at this bug, it seemed obvious to me that merely removing the > obnoxious phrasing and functionality was an easy way to fix this bug; in a > GPLv3- and DFSG-compatible way. > * I am not the Debian maintainer of src:parallel, so my contribution was one- > -off. > * I did a Non-Maintainer Upload immediately, following DevRef 5.11.1: > > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu-guidelines > * I do think that making fine free software unnecessarily cumbersome to use, > only to increase user's knowledge of the original author's funding > initiatives is bad practice. This reduces the quality of software and > is really on the line of what makes software really "free software" > (I'm fine to disagree with RMS on that front). Weaker phrasing doesn't > make the intent any better. > * Prominent links or funding
Bug#905674: GNU Parallel patch
Control: clone -1 -2 Control: retitle -2 parallel 20161222-1.1 NMU removes upstream "--will-cite" functionality Control: reopen -2 Control: notfound -2 20161222 Control: found -2 20161222-1.1 Control: severity -2 important Dear Ole, Le lundi, 3 décembre 2018, 18.55:00 h CET Ole Tange a écrit : > I have noticed that you have submitted a patch and closed this bug: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905674#77 > > I am sure you are trying to do what is best for free software. But > what looks like a good idea in the short run, may be a bad idea in the > long run. The long term survival of Debian depends on others building > free software that can be packaged, so destroying these people's > livelihood is a bad long term strategy. > > In the reasoning for the patch you state: > > Quoting the gpl-faq: > [... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation ...] > > > Therefore, removing this to make parallel GPL-compliant. > > I think this is due to a misunderstanding. > > Maybe you not aware that Richard M. Stallman together with the GNU > leaders have cleared the wording and the use of the citation notice, > and that he sees it as complying fully with GPLv3? I was not, but, as Debian Developer, I don't feel bound by RMS' (and "GNU leaders", whomever this designates) statements about GPLv3. What mattered for this now-closed bugreport is our DFSG; specifically it's article 1 (emphasis mine) and 5. > DFSG 1: Free Redistribution > The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or > giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software > distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license > *may not require a royalty or other fee* for such sale. > DFSG 5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. Le lundi, 3 décembre 2018, 18.55:00 h CET Ole Tange a écrit : > Your patch therefore does not change the GPLv3-compliancy: The code > was already compliant. I disagree; my understanding is that RMS declared parallel to carry no problem with regards to GPLv3 compliance in October 2018, probably for the latest upstream release. But Debian ships parallel 20161222 which: * contains a request for the user to promise academic citation, * imposes the use of either "--will-cite" or the presence of a `~.parallel/will-cite`, which makes it unnecessarily burdensome to use in a scripted manner. This is a clear attempt at side-stepping GPLv3 software freedoms by using guilt-inducting language. As the GPLv3 allows (almost any) modification, I've just went and did that, also to ensure that src:parallel can stay in the Debian main archive, where it belongs. > But what your patch *does* do, is to make it harder to earn a living > from developing GNU Parallel and will make it much harder for me to > justify spending time maintaining GNU Parallel. Be careful with such arguments: by merely distributing GNU parallel in its main archive, Debian is also vastly expanding the availability of GNU parallel. And if you do insist on getting Debian to rename it, you'll likely lose any incentive from "renamed GNU parallel" users getting it from the Debian archive. > As Nadia Eghbal puts it 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?" > > This describes very well what you are doing with the patch, and I > refuse to think that was your goal. For the record: * My primary goal was to remove a "Release Critical" bug from Debian's next stable release, during a Bug Squashing Party; * While looking at this bug, it seemed obvious to me that merely removing the obnoxious phrasing and functionality was an easy way to fix this bug; in a GPLv3- and DFSG-compatible way. * I am not the Debian maintainer of src:parallel, so my contribution was one- -off. * I did a Non-Maintainer Upload immediately, following DevRef 5.11.1: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu-guidelines * I do think that making fine free software unnecessarily cumbersome to use, only to increase user's knowledge of the original author's funding initiatives is bad practice. This reduces the quality of software and is really on the line of what makes software really "free software" (I'm fine to disagree with RMS on that front). Weaker phrasing doesn't make the intent any better. * Prominent links or funding pitches are fine in _documentation_, as long as they: - don't imply that payment is mandatory; - don't impose citation; For instance, parallel 20161222 manpage's > If you pay 1 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing. … is not acceptable IMHO. * I am not a Debian FTP-master, in charge of specific interpretations of the DFSG. > So if you
Bug#905674: GNU Parallel patch
Dear Didier Thanks for help organizing the BSP in Bern. I have noticed that you have submitted a patch and closed this bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905674#77 I am sure you are trying to do what is best for free software. But what looks like a good idea in the short run, may be a bad idea in the long run. The long term survival of Debian depends on others building free software that can be packaged, so destroying these people's livelihood is a bad long term strategy. In the reasoning for the patch you state: > Quoting the gpl-faq: [... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation ...] > Therefore, removing this to make parallel GPL-compliant. I think this is due to a misunderstanding. Maybe you not aware that Richard M. Stallman together with the GNU leaders have cleared the wording and the use of the citation notice, and that he sees it as complying fully with GPLv3? And thus not in conflict with https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation The reasoning why there is no conflict is because citing is a matter of honor - not law. Thus it does not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor, but simply conveys that you will be taking away future funding for development if you do not cite. The mail from RMS is included below. Your patch therefore does not change the GPLv3-compliancy: The code was already compliant. But what your patch *does* do, is to make it harder to earn a living from developing GNU Parallel and will make it much harder for me to justify spending time maintaining GNU Parallel. Please help building more free software instead of attacking the developer's livelihood. Not everyone is so lucky that they are hired in a company where you get paid to develop free software. As Nadia Eghbal puts it 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?" This describes very well what you are doing with the patch, and I refuse to think that was your goal. So if you want to help other developers make a living and thereby get more free software made, I encourage you to revert the patch and instead upgrade to 20180922: Maybe you simply were not aware that the latest stable version (20180922) is *already* GPLv3 compliant. Thanks for your work on free software. It is appreciated. /Ole On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:07 AM Richard Stallman wrote: > > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > GNU leaders studied looked at the current version of GNU Parallel. > Based on their report, I've concluded there is no problem in it. : > -- > Dr Richard Stallman > President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) > Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
