Hi,
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:33:57PM -0700, Ross Walker wrote:
> 1) We unify everything into a single src tree with a single configure
> script, single master makefile and single set of test cases.
>
> 2) We create a makerelease script that will either build a tar file of
> 'AMBER' or a tar file of 'AMBERTools' - the key being that AMBER includes
> AMBERTools explicitly.
Yes on 1.
Yes on 2; but i recommend that both are called Amber.
To reiterate I recommend again that we eliminate AMBERTools.
If x paid for the non-free parts of Amber then x gets everything.
If x did not pay for the non-free parts of Amber then x gets only the free stuff.
I still don't understand Dave's license issue.
Compared to the current dev/build/test mess that we have, i expect that
managing licenses will be trivial.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:54:02AM -0400, David A Case wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
> > What I am suggesting is the following: [outline of a scheme where Amber12
> is a "complete package"...]
>
> Ross: my concern is that you never address the disadvantages of this scheme,
> which for convenience and emphasis I copy from my last email:
>
> > > After an update of AmberTools, we then have two versions of everything.
> What would we ship to people who buy Amber12 *after* a staggered update
> of AmberTools?
Of course we would ship them the old Amber12 paid parts and the updated
Ambertools parts. If one thinks in terms of everything is Amber then we
are always shipping the latest non-developmental stuff.
> > > We would still be kind of obligated to support the "official
> Amber12" package for two full years.
Of course since the paid parts have not changed, why is that a problem ?
scott
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Nov 04 2011 - 17:30:03 PDT
