> On Feb 22, 2015, at 7:21 PM, Ross Walker <ross.rosswalker.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:45:05AM -0500, Jason Swails wrote:
>>>> On Feb 21, 2015, at 10:52 AM, David A Case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015, Gerald Monard wrote:
>>>>> No odd numbers anymore. It also leaves some
>>>>> time (until the '16 release) to re-factor the directories and decide if
>>>>> we drop the AmberTools naming.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of points along this thread:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We can't merge the AmberTools and Amber source trees together. The
>>>> split between the AmberTools stuff and the pmemd stuff is there because
>>>> they fall under different licenses. Intermingling the trees would just
>>>> confuse that issue.
>>
>> This does not make sense. pmemd has its own source directory and license
>> file as do some other programs (and as ~every program once did before
>> Dave rearranged things years ago):
>> src/pmemd/src/copyright.i
>> AmberTools/src/cpptraj/LICENSE
>> AmberTools/src/reduce/LICENSE
>> ...
>>
>> Please provide a syllogism that explains the split.
>
> Indeed this also makes no sense to me. The whole FREE GPL blah vs proprietary split between AmberTools and Amber was never properly done anyway. E.g. $AMBERHOME/AmberTools/src/chamber/copyright.h
This is confusing, and it should be fixed. It *should* be FOSS, or it should be moved to Amber. (It doesn’t *really* matter, since chamber is getting phased out.)
I was under the impression that everything in AmberTools was being relicensed to LGPL or something compatible (like BSD).
All the best,
Jason
--
Jason M. Swails
BioMaPS,
Rutgers University
Postdoctoral Researcher
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sun Feb 22 2015 - 18:30:03 PST
