On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 06:18:10AM -0500, Jason Swails wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Scott Brozell <sbrozell.rci.rutgers.edu>
> > 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>
> > > > 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>
> > > >>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015, Gerald Monard wrote:
> > > >>>> decide if drop the AmberTools naming.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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 ...
> > >
> > > > Please provide a syllogism that explains the split.
> > >
> > > See below.
> >
> > Where, i did not see it ?
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> This isn't about, and has never been about, *forcing*. But apparently
> since everyone is licensing their own code the way they want in AmberTools,
> the split gives no clarity on this front. I'll probably punt this question
> to Dave.
Thanks for the statement that the split is not forced.
Yes, it was about that; when Dave wrote "We can't merge" what he
really meant was "It would be too expensive to merge" or the like.
(When people in authority make absolute statements, some people
blindly believe them, and some others want the truth known.)
scott
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Mon Feb 23 2015 - 09:30:02 PST
