On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 9:56 AM, case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2011, Timothy Giese wrote:
>
>> If parts of AMBERTools were compiled with amber proper to create an
>> amber executable in which both parts of code shared the same address
>> space, then both AMBERTools and amber-proper are bound by the terms of
>> the gpl.
>
> Not quite: we actually offer AmberTools under a dual license. One is GPL
> which is available to everyone. The second is to Amber, and authorizes
> Amber to link AmberTools into the non-GPL Amber code.
>
> It's actually rather common to have the same code licensed in two ways like
> this.
>
> ...dac
>
So, anything that anyone adds to AmberTools under the guise of the gpl
is automagically licensed under something else as well? If you owned
the copyright - you can change the license however you want - sure.
But if a gpl code is accepting contributions without a copyright
contract from contributors, then you wouldn't seem to have the right
to dual license those contributions. I would have guessed that the
point of gpl-ing ambertools would be to avoid the headache of dealing
with that legal headache.
-Tim
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sat Nov 05 2011 - 08:30:03 PDT
