No CLI ads: Ad blocker for command line interface ads | Hacker News Reader

No CLI ads: Ad blocker for command line interface ads

github.com

12 pointsTekMol12 comments

Haven't we had CLI ads for some time? I mean, this is an ad, right?

  % parallel
  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:
  
    O. Tange (2018): GNU Parallel 2018, Mar 2018, ISBN 9781387509881,
    DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1146014

  This helps funding further development; AND IT WON'T COST YOU A CENT.
  If you pay 10000 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

  To silence this citation notice: run 'parallel --citation' once.

And that has been in GNU parallel for years.

> this is an ad, right?

It's not advertising some other product/service, it's simply asking to be cited when used in publications.

And it can be silenced by running one command...

You agree that it's an ad, right? (And it's asking for a voluntary donation of 10000 EUR as an alternative, so certainly money is involved.)

Is the GNU parallel ad okay, but other ads are not?

If so, what makes something a "good" ad? Or a "tasteful" one?

If this isn't an advertisement, what should I call it should I wish to put something similar in my code?

Telling people to cite their work, which is way different.

Cite their work or give 10 000 EUR to the project. The last makes it an advertisement.

If it isn't an advertisement, what it is? A public service announcement?

Pretty much, yeah, because it’s a joke. You get jokes, right?

If you do a work that needs strict citations and not cite properly, your project itself could be at stake. No one will pay 10,000EUR to be questioned by the ethics board about their work.

Is it an advertisement? Yes, or no?

If not, what is it?

(Lots of advertisements contain/are jokes.)

And -- hah! You know how many papers there are which used software X, Y, and Z, all with cite-able references, and where the authors did NOT cite the software?

I mean, last year I was at a conference, talking to a vendor, who complained about academics, using their software under an academic license which clearly requires that the vendor be cited for any publications, who omit citing their work.

I have never heard of any scientific project which got in trouble for omitting a reference for an non-scientific software component like GNU parallel - and I can't think of any which have gotten into trouble for omitting a reference to a scientific software component they use.

At best it would be described as an oversight, and if the journal really is that strict (can you point to one?), resolved with a correction. It's certainly not a threat to the project.

But, let's suppose it is an issue.

Shouldn't more software components be doing this?

Requesting funding is an advert.

I find it concerning that a money-grubbing Perl script, which basically just reinvents `xargs -P`, would be allowed to become an official GNU project. It reflects poorly on GNU. It undermines trust in the Free Software movement. It erases the contributions of folks like Larry Wall, along with the other unsung heroes in open source, whose good works made it possible for this misguided author to print a message pleading for citations.

I know the principles of the GNU project, and see nothing in the Four Freedoms or the other ideals which is in opposition to this sort of behavior. Surely Stallman knows them better than you or I, and he is not opposed.

What is the concern you have? Why does it reflect poorly? How does it undermine trust? What is the trust you have in the Free Software Movement that I don't have and don't think exists?

(Perhaps you are a source of 'license drama' that you complained about at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20693660 ?)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/money... says "someone who is money-grubing has money as their main interest and does anything possible to get a lot of it."

There is no indication that that term applies here. If I am underpaid in my job position, and ask my boss for a raise, am I money-grubbing?

Your "basically just reinvents", is yet another overly dismissive term. A cursory look of the documentation shows many things which are far beyond what a simple xargs-reinvention would do.

In any case so what? Look at how many other GNU tools are "just reinventions" of standard Unix tools.

Larry Wall is not an "unsung hero" of open source.

Do you seriously think Wall has a problem with this? I mean, look at how many commercial packages there are/were which are based on Perl, and not made open source/free software.

If it's okay for companies to make loads of money, based on free and open source software, what's wrong with the free software developer also making loads of money? Or asking for citations?

It's unusual aberrant behavior for an official GNU project to have its default behavior be printing a banner asking for citations and $30,000 cheques for just one guy. You don't speak for Richard Stallman. I'm sure once this is brought to the attention of the right folks at GNU, the situation will be addressed appropriately. All the other GNU tools I've seen use the startup message to plug the movement as a whole, and explain how its principles benefit you as a user.

I infer that you didn't follow the link after "More about funding GNU Parallel and the citation notice:" to https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#C... where the GNU parallel documentation says:

"As the request for citation is not a legal requirement this is acceptable under GPLv3 and cleared with Richard M. Stallman himself."

That is why I wrote 'Surely Stallman knows them better than you or I, and he is not opposed.' Not because I'm trying to "speak for" Stallman, but because I trust Ole Tange is not lying by writing that in the documentation.

That also why I'm sure that this has been "brought to the attention of the right folks at GNU".

If not, that lie has been around for years, with no one catching it.

Why are you so sure it will be otherwise?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com