On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Timothy Giese <timothyjgiese.gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Oh, I see now. Looking at AmberTools/LICENSE, it looks like
AmberTools went out of its way not to include things that were,
themselves, GPL (but only includes libraries covered under less
restrictive licences like MIT and BSD)
... that was a pretty good strategy... good foresight.
-Tim
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sat Nov 05 2011 - 10:00:03 PDT
