If you look there, he says, "... please cite as per ..." So, it isn't required as a part of the license or condition of use. It's just begging.
I suspect that's how it's not in violation of the GNU terms and GPLv3, but I'm not an expert.
And you should cite what version of Perl you used, for example. You should also ensure the source for Perl is available for future researchers. That's why open source is so valuable in academia.
Obviously there is a reasonable limit. If it potentially had an impact, cite it. The key word is reasonable.
I don't know enough about parallel to comment about the viability of it impacting the output. I still find it alarming that they feel compelled to beg for citations.
Also, yeah, when I cited software, it went into the acknowledgments section. This being a different era, I included my email address (the Internet was not world wide back then, so to speak) so that people could contact me and I could mail them a copy of software that I wrote, both compiled and the source.
I'd cite any software that was reasonable to consider as relevant. If possible, I'd cite a scientific article, where possible. A couple of times, the software want necessarily all that important for the science, but I'd found it so useful that I'd cite it - though that was more to draw attention to it.
I do now wonder if it is a generational thing. Namely, when I was still in academia, there wasn't as much software as there is now. The use of computers was still fairly new. Citing our software tools was a bit more unique and citing COTS software was probably even more rare.
That may have something to do with it. While I still read a lot of papers, I'm completely removed from academia. I suspect I missed something along the way. It has been nearly 30 years - that's eons in the world of computers.
https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/
If you look there, he says, "... please cite as per ..." So, it isn't required as a part of the license or condition of use. It's just begging.
I suspect that's how it's not in violation of the GNU terms and GPLv3, but I'm not an expert.
And you should cite what version of Perl you used, for example. You should also ensure the source for Perl is available for future researchers. That's why open source is so valuable in academia.
Obviously there is a reasonable limit. If it potentially had an impact, cite it. The key word is reasonable.
I don't know enough about parallel to comment about the viability of it impacting the output. I still find it alarming that they feel compelled to beg for citations.
Also, yeah, when I cited software, it went into the acknowledgments section. This being a different era, I included my email address (the Internet was not world wide back then, so to speak) so that people could contact me and I could mail them a copy of software that I wrote, both compiled and the source.
I'd cite any software that was reasonable to consider as relevant. If possible, I'd cite a scientific article, where possible. A couple of times, the software want necessarily all that important for the science, but I'd found it so useful that I'd cite it - though that was more to draw attention to it.
I do now wonder if it is a generational thing. Namely, when I was still in academia, there wasn't as much software as there is now. The use of computers was still fairly new. Citing our software tools was a bit more unique and citing COTS software was probably even more rare.
That may have something to do with it. While I still read a lot of papers, I'm completely removed from academia. I suspect I missed something along the way. It has been nearly 30 years - that's eons in the world of computers.