Re: [AMBER-Developers] Amber release names

From: Ross Walker <>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:42:21 -0800

>>> 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).

No, no, no and no. What is in AmberTools is provided free for use in the manner intended. As far as I am concerned I retain personal copyright of all code I contribute. I make it available royalty free for use in AMBER and AmberTools. This is VERY different to GPL, LGPL, BSD etc.

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 Sun Feb 22 2015 - 19:00:02 PST
Custom Search