Re: Bug#905674: undistributable

[Joe Sapp]

I know this has come up before, but I am unconvinced.  Can you be more
explicit about the argument presented in the quote?  I read the
argument as: since there is some wording in the help/man
page/first-run output requesting citation after use, nobody but the
copyright holder can distribute the software."  Please help me if I
missed the point.

The quoted argument even admits the "requirement" is not a part of the
license.  Has a lawyer evaluated the output of the software/man page
and decided it's in violation of the GPL?  It seems like the only
thing that should matter legally is the actual license shipped with
the software.

Finally, everything cited as a problem is worded as a request, not a
requirement: "please cite" and "you should feel free to use GNU
Parallel without citing".  I suppose a fork could be made (since this
issue doesn't have the consent of upstream) but as with most forks it
makes sense to rename it.

-- 
Joe

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> 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 €10000.  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 requirement,
>> without success.  Thus, diplomacy doesn't appear to be likely to help,
>> although letting rms know may work (this package has been blessed as an
>> official GNU one, obviously before the requirement was added).
>>
>> Thus, only options I see are:
>> * renaming the package and removing offending code, or
>> * complete removal
>>
>>
>> Meow!
>> --
>> // If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
>> // cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
>> // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
>> // your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.
>>
>
> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
> http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>