151–160 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's disingenuous to say that Richard Stallman is a "random person" regarding the GPL.
But legally, does intention matter in either copyright or contract law? And specially someone who is neither licensee or licensor?
Generally though, the contents of the text and (if applicable) case law surrounding its interpretation is more important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And calling that GPL? You can add any message you want into your GPL program. Also, a GPL program does not have to be free. This has nothing to do with the GPL. You can say in your program that 'by using this software you agree that you're a a cat' and license it under the GPL. That does not mean the GPL relates to cats in any way.
The message isn't part of the license, and it's phrased in a way that wouldn't be binding if it were. It says "please cite" and "feel free to not cite if you pay". It doesn't say "must cite" or "you may only not cite if you pay". IANAL, but it doesn't seem like it would interact with the GPL at all. So the worst that could be said is that the implementation is annoying or in poor taste.
Notionally the GPL allows you to disregard this but it may or may not be binding depending on your jurisdiction, and it’s certainly distasteful and against the absolute spirit and most likely the text of the GPL. This is an incompatible term being forced on the end user and the entire license might well be void.
I didn't know about this, and reading through the comments, I found out that xargs can also do batching and parallelism (nice!). However, it appears that if you pipe the output of an xargs-parallel command into another utility, it jumbles the output of the multiple subprocesses, whereas GNU parallel does not. I was a little put off by the annoying/scary citation issue mentioned by another commenter, so I am not sure…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's disingenuous to say that Richard Stallman is a "random person" regarding the GPL.
But legally, does intention matter in either copyright or contract law? And specially someone who is neither licensee or licensor?
Is the author still adding the "cite me or pay 10000€" notice to the output? And calling that GPL? And still answering every xargs Stackoverflow question with "you should use GNU Parallel" instead of answering the question? That really gets old quickly when googling for xarg answers. These are just some of the reasons I'll never use parallel. xargs is perfectly fine for most usecases, and it can do everything I need…
> And calling that GPL? You can add any message you want into your GPL program. Also, a GPL program does not have to be free. This has nothing to do with the GPL. You can say in your program that 'by using this software you agree that you're a a cat' and license it under the GPL. That does not mean the GPL relates to cats in any way.
I agree that in this case it’s likely not enforceable/binding especially since the GPL specifically allows you to ignore those terms. Hopefully that’s legally binding in your jurisdiction vs the other party.
But it’s a straightforward clickwrap agreement, even if the terms are non-monetary the GPL simply doesn’t allow these at all. Can’t place any stipulations on how the user uses the software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the release history it may be that the releases are named after some front page daily news headline or something. Even so, knowingly naming a release after a war criminal is very off-putting.
It shall not be. It is a notability indication, not endorsement, just take a look at other release names from the time of the war. Or compare to Time's "Person of the year".
The author is having musk-ish type of fun and that's their freedom. My freedom is to feel disgust by seeing mass murderers, even if they are treated equal to not controversial topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is the author still adding the "cite me or pay 10000€" notice to the output? And calling that GPL? IIRC the citation notice was cleared by Stallman as GPL compatible. I’d be surprised if anyone’s paid, I assumed that’s rhetoric to imply the value of a citation, or lack of citation, for anyone publishing scientific works. > These are just some of the reasons I’ll never use parallel. Hey I’ve actually ranted on HN be…
Citing tools is maybe not tradition, but it's gaining popularity. R, for example, has 320,000 cites. ( https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1605575084878280829... )
Administrators who gauge work quality by counting citations are not helping the world much. Maybe it's time we started citing administrators who help us in our work ... so that their administrators can get rid of them if they are not helping. But of course I'm dreaming in technicolour -- administrators are never really subject to review, it seems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
from that man page, there is a name clash with "ts" from moreutils
moreutils also clashes with parallel, does it not? i remember installing some package for chronic and thus breaking GNU parallel, at least back in the late 2010s.