My mistake - I was looking at $AMBERHOME/GNU_LGPL_v2. It appears that
is distributed with non-AmberTools Amber (via mkrelease). Should that
be updated?
-Dan
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:39 AM, David Case <david.case.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017, Dan Roe wrote:
>
>> Also, note that cusp is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license,
>> which appears to be incompatible with the gnu LGPL 2.1 that Amber is
>> distributed under:
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
>
> Where do we mention LGPL v2? Both the LICENSE file and the GNU_LGPL_v3 file
> in $AMBERHOME/AmberTools state that we use version 3 of the GPL and LGPL.
> And version 3 is compatible with apache2, according to the web page cited
> above.
>
> I'm guessing that somewhere else there must be an (incorrect) reference to
> LGPL 2.1; if so, we should get that fixed.
>
> Ray: be sure to update the LICENSE file if we are planning to include cusp
> libraries in the distribution. (Seems dangerous at this late date--has
> any Amber person ever used these libraries with portland group, intel, cray,
> etc compilers?)
>
> ....dac
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
--
-------------------------
Daniel R. Roe
Laboratory of Computational Biology
National Institutes of Health, NHLBI
5635 Fishers Ln, Rm T900
Rockville MD, 20852
https://www.lobos.nih.gov/lcb
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Mar 10 2017 - 08:00:03 PST
