*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
The CCP4 license, for example, is rather more restrictive, and for non-academic users, is essentially commercial (i.e., industrial users pay money to CCP4 to use it legally). Thankfully, the source code is available, but I think it violates the license to redistribute it. Although I like free software in the Richard Stallman sense of the term, I (unlike Stallman) think it is perfectly reasonable for CCP4 to charge drug companies for the software, rather than make the British taxpayer underwrite some of their research and development. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 16 Jan, Tim Fenn wrote: >> then you should recheck your list. Many of the software packages on >> your link use licenses that are neither OSI nor FSF approved - see > > If you had specifics, that would be helpful. As a GNU-Darwin.org admin, > I am obviously aware of the free software definition, but define FOSS to > be more inclusive for the broader arenas of professional pursuits and > political activism. In the essay, this position is employed for the > purpose of coalition building, so that we can find common ground. There > is much at stake. Here is the link again for your convenience. > > http://proclus.gnu-darwin.org/aCommunique2.html > > Thanks Tim for your excellent contributions to FOSS in science. > > Regards, > Michael L. Love > > -- > Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ > -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- > Version: 3.1 > GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O > M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ > h--- r+++ y++++ > ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ > > >
