Re: [AMBER-Developers] Amber release names

From: Ross Walker <>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:46:08 -0800

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 5:22 AM, David A Case <> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015, Scott Brozell wrote:
>> I have tried and never understood this AmberTools split.
>> Others also do not understand it.
> Please suggest changes to the amber14/AmberTools/LICENSE and/or amber14/README
> files that would make things clearer.

I think a blanket LGPL statement here is an issue. This should be copyright of the respective authors (or their institutions or PI, depending on how their university licenses it) and then provided free for use within the context of the AmberSoftware package - essentially a free version of the regular Amber License.

>> $AMBERHOME/AmberTools/src/chamber/copyright.h
> Fixed in git/master. Please fix or let us know about other errors like this.

But that doesn't fix it. That makes it LGPL as stated by amber14/AmberTools/LICENSE and this is the problem and what I object to. I am happy for code that I help develop that is part of AMBER to be free to use and source available (within the context of Amber) - however, I object to giving others permission to use that work without suitable compensation.

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 Mon Feb 23 2015 - 09:00:04 PST
Custom Search