Hi,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 03:51:41PM -0400, David A Case wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014, Ross Walker wrote:
>
> > Huh? - IANAL but seems to me that since we don't distribute any binaries
> > and we require the user to build their own copy of AMBER that by doing so
> > - that is manually running ./configure themselves and then typing make
> > they are themselves manually linking to FFTW3 and we are not doing
> > anything 'automatic' for them so this is probably not an issue.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I don't think you are a lawyer. And I don't think "automatic" vs.
> "manual" is really important here. But I'd urge people to read paragraph
> 4 of the GPLv3 license (in $AMBERHOME/AmberTools/LICENSE; this also
> applies to fftw). All we are doing with fftw3 is distributing verbatim
> source code, which is explicitly allowed. We never distribute non-source
> code (covered by paragraph 6), so basically I think we are fine: remember
> that the GPL rights are based on copyright. In this regard, GPLv3 is much
> more explicit about what can and should not be done than is GPLv2.
Wink, wink, nod, nod.
---
tail $AMBERHOME/AmberTools/LICENSE
The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.
---
And note that we are put into this position of saying
"ohh, we didn't know that users would actually (illegally)
link the fftw3 (that we legally distributed) with our proprietary programs"
by lawyers:
http://fftw.org/faq/section1.html#nonfree
scott
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Oct 15 2014 - 19:30:02 PDT
