On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Hai Nguyen <nhai.qn.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:57 PM, David Case <david.case.rutgers.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017, Hai Nguyen wrote:
>> >
>> > >From AmberTools/LICENSE
>> > > The sander and mdgx codes are provided under the GNU Lesser
>> > > General Public License, version 3. See GNU_LGPL_v3 in this
>> directory.
>> > > (This is to allow libsander and libmdgx to be linked to other
>> programs
>> > > that might not be licensed under the GNU GPL.)
>> >
>> > However, for the regular install, libsander is linked to pbsa, which
>> holds
>> > GPL v3 license.
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> Can you try to explain this more carefully? I must say I really don't
>> understand the objection.
>>
>> sander and libsander have an LGPL license, which allows libsander to be
>> linked
>> to programs with lots of license models. There doesn't seem to be any
>> problem with linking libsander to pbsa.(?)
>>
>>
> Hi,
>
> This is my understanding:
> Yes, libsander (LGPL v3) can be linked with libpbsa (GPL v3). But then it
> (libsander) will be treated as GLP v3 derived work (since GPL v3 is more
> less permissive than LGPL v3). So non-GPL license programs are not allowed
> to to link to libsander.
>
>
Ooops, typos:
- "GLP v3 --> "GPL v3"
- "more less permissive " --> "less permissive"
Hai
> So we either
> - make pbsa license as LGPL v3 or more permissive
> - or unlink libsander to libpbsa (unlikely)
> - make sander/libsander GPL v3 (unlikely since we (e.g: you, ...) want it
> as LGPL v3)
>
> > (Is it just a matter that we need to explicitly say that libpbsa is
> LGPL?)
>
> yes, that's it.
>
> PS: May be Jason can chime in here. He's good at explaining things (among
> others). :D
> Hai
>
> >
>> > Native question: Should we be clear that user should exclude linking to
>> > pbsa if he/she wants to use LGPL v3?
>>
>> Same question, can you be more precise in this question? "user should
>> exclude
>> linking (what?) to pbsa"? Do you mean linking some code to *libpbsa.a*?
>> Can
>> you give an explicit example of something that seems to be a problem?
>>
>> ...thx...dac
>>
>> (Is it just a matter that we need to explicitly say that libpbsa is LGPL?)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AMBER-Developers mailing list
>> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Mar 17 2017 - 19:00:03 PDT
