Re: [AMBER-Developers] Some notes and questions from the recent developers' meeting

From: Ross Walker <>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:40:53 -0800

> I would tend to think that what Daniel suggests should be considered:
> what people will get by paying the Amber licence fee in 2015 will be the
> 2014 version of pmemd (+updates). Downloading the free stuff will be the
> 2015 version of Amber(Tools). In some ways, the directory tree should
> show that. But the risk here is that, at the end, you don't sell
> something called Amber but Pmemd...

Yes this should NOT happen - people still buy AMBER - the name of what they are buying is AMBER. Everything else would be both a pain in the butt and a bad idea in my opinion.

What we probably should have done is had AmberLite and AMBER. Where if you take the free version you get AmberLite if you buy AMBER you get AmberLite + the paid for bits - in either case you get a single download, single tree, single configure file, single website, single manual etc etc. This is the standard model that just about every piece of paid for software / app uses when it gives away free stuff.

The problem is that in terms of AMBER that boat sailed (and sunk years ago). Perhaps we could refloat it? - and finally drown AmberTools.

All the best
|\oss Walker

| Associate Research Professor |
| San Diego Supercomputer Center |
| Adjunct Associate Professor |
| Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry |
| University of California San Diego |
| NVIDIA Fellow |
| | |
| Tel: +1 858 822 0854 | EMail:- |

Note: Electronic Mail is not secure, has no guarantee of delivery, may not be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues.

AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Fri Feb 20 2015 - 16:00:02 PST
Custom Search