Herbert said: > The only possible license conflict in using RasMol 2.7 as a base would > be if you were planning to make a non-open-source derivative. Is jmol > changing from being open source?
We've had this discussion before ... There are no plans to change Jmol from being open source. > If you are concerned about the > different license wording used for RasMol, we will be able to move over > to the GPL once we have excised the GIF code. Richard Stallman has > agreed that the CIF code does not create a conflict. Per our email exchanges last year, I am not comfortable using the 2.7 code until it is available under a GPL license. This is especially the case because of the history of the RasMol licensing terms. And because you indicated that the GIF code was a particular problem with the GPL terms. I believe that you previously indicated that you were hoping that your students could get most of the work done during the Fall of 2003. Once OpenRasMol is available under GPL I will be eager to use it. > Your real problem arises if you download and use Chime. The MDL > license forbids reverse engineering. Thank you. I am aware of the MDL licensing terms. > Use of 2.6 as a base will just create yet another slightly different > variant of RasMol and propogate some rather arcane bugs for a few > more years. I appreciate your concern. I am comfortable that I am using 2.6 as a reference, not as a base. Miguel ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
