I don't understand how GNU finds this acceptable...
According to https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...
> == 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
If you are of the view that clearance by RMS is clearance by FSF/GNU, then that's how they find it acceptable. If you take a different view, then the next part of that section applies:
> 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.
There's also an interesting comparison to be made:
> == 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.
Note that the citation message can also be easily silenced just by creating an empty file:
touch ~/.parallel/will-citeThe right way to do this is to patch the behavior out of the program, which you're entitled to do by its license. Or, rather by the fact that the license doesn't concern itself with use.
That is covered in the FAQ:
== 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.
I believe that a distro could get around this by providing a script a user can execute, or a patch that the user can apply that removes the nag code from the installation of GNU Parallel. Even if we take the view that the script creates a fork, it only creates a private one on the user's machine, and not anything that is redistributed; without distribution taking place, what is taking place is use.
You're entitled to your preferences and your own fork of the GNU Parallel. I'll even help you out with that - all you need to do to remove the citation message is to comment out lines 1840-1843 in "src/parallel" file.
Just please don't demand everyone else (i.e. distro maintainers) to stab the main developer in the back just to accommodate your preferences.
Imagine a world where every utility has its own irritating nag message that needs to be turned off.
How so?
A lot of software requires you to configure it before the first run, and we regard that as scalable.
A lot of software requires you to pay for it before the first run (most Microsoft server software comes to mind), yet we regard that as scalable. You can also pay for gnu paralell: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...
Is it because you insist that you get software for free (zero cost in gnu speak)? Because that is really not what the free software movement is all about.
$ ls
Thank you for using the /bin/ls utility!
Did you know that you can upgrade to LS PRO for a mere fraction of a bitcoin?
Or just post a selfie tagged #LS_PRO_RULES on Twitter!
LS PRO has many amazing features that you are missing.
This message can be removed by using the --no-awesome-ls-pro-upgrade-msg flag.
Here is your file listing:
.bashrc .catconf .cprc .ddconfig .dfprefs ...
$ exit -1In LibreOffice I have to click a "Don't show tip of the day again" every time I install it on an new machine, and personally I have no problem with that. If I had, I would use something else.
Zsh asks me to configure it, first time I run it. I find that slightly annoying, but not to the extend that I would even consider complaining, sending a patch, or using an alternative.
But I assume you are aware that your comparison is really not valid: Parellel is not limited in features - you do not get extra features by paying/citing. What you are doing is keeping it alive.
Also, if you really do not like the notice, why not just pay for it? Are you opposed to paying for free software? And if so, how do you suggest developers of free software make a living? And why are you not actively doing that for GNU Parallel, which you clearly have so strong opinions on, that you are willing to spend time complaining but not willing to ignore (and use another tool)?