On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Timothy Giese <timothyjgiese.gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>
Also, to put this thread into context, the original quotation was
taken from a different thread, and it was used in a particular context
that doesn't make it read correctly when it stands on its own - so let
me clarify the context.
The original concern was:
Linking ambertools to amber does not violate the gpl unless
(1) ambertools was gpl and amber was not gpl
AND
(2) ambertools was distributed with amber
...and from Dr Case's note, we can add
AND
(3) ambertools was not dual licensed
Clearly, if someone put the linux kernel inside of ambertools, you
wouldn't have the right to distribute it under a different license...
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it; I'm just trying to emphasize the
point by example.
-Tim
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sat Nov 05 2011 - 09:00:04 PDT
