On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 09:23:51PM -0500, Jason Swails wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Scott Brozell <sbrozell.rci.rutgers.edu> 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.
>
> See below.
Where, i did not see it ?
What i saw was the statement
"The current directory split was VERY convenient when I designed update_amber ... "
I want to see the logical proof that licensing forces us into the split.
Or an admission that no such proof exists and thus that we could theoretically merge.
scott
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sun Feb 22 2015 - 22:30:02 PST
