Employer Evotec
Location Oxfordshire
Job Title X-ray crystallography - Senior Scientist
Closing date 13th July 2007
Evotec is involved in the discovery and development of the next
generation of novel small molecule based drugs through both co
Hi
The following excerpt from Richard Stallman's talk at the 5th
international GPLv3 conference (http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/
gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript) indicates that there is a problem with
the CCP4 license.
It is important to clarify this, and, as RMS says, that if you want
to
I'm afraid there is no ambiguity. You can't use the CCP4 version 6.*
libraries in GPL software.
The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4 5.0.2
libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently maintained
by Ralph Grosse-Kunstleve to address the more serious d
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 06:55, Kevin Cowtan wrote:
> I'm afraid there is no ambiguity. You can't use the CCP4 version 6.*
> libraries in GPL software.
This sounds strange to me.
The question is usually raised in the other direction - whether GPL
libraries can be used by a non-GPL program [*].
He
Ethan Merrit wrote:
This sounds strange to me.
The question is usually raised in the other direction - whether GPL
libraries can be used by a non-GPL program [*].
Here you are saying that a GPL program cannot use non-GPL libraries.
I believe this is false. To take an obvious example, consider G
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 09:44, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> Ethan Merrit wrote:
> > This sounds strange to me.
> > The question is usually raised in the other direction - whether GPL
> > libraries can be used by a non-GPL program [*].
> >
> > Here you are saying that a GPL program cannot use non-GPL
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:55:22 +0100 Kevin Cowtan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4
> 5.0.2 libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently
> maintained by Ralph Grosse-Kunstleve to address the more serious
> deficiencies of
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 11:50, Tim Fenn wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:55:22 +0100 Kevin Cowtan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4
> > 5.0.2 libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently
> > maintained by Ralph Gr
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote:
> Not at all. Consider all those users of GPL programs running on Windows.
> The developers of cygwin, mplayer, etc have no right to redistribute
> Windows itself.
Programs running under windows are not derivative works of Windows
otherwis
The CCP4 license does explicitly allow you to redistribute library code
Phil
On 3 Jul 2007, at 20:09, Michel Fodje wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote:
Not at all. Consider all those users of GPL programs running on
Windows. The developers of cygwin, mplayer, etc hav
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:58AM -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 July 2007 11:50, Tim Fenn wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:55:22 +0100 Kevin Cowtan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4
> > > 5.0.2 libraries,
> > > The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4
> > > 5.0.2 libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently
> > > maintained by Ralph Grosse-Kunstleve to address the more serious
> > > deficiencies of the older libraries.
> > >
> >
> > Are the libraries with the
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:09, Michel Fodje wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote:
> >
> > They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and
> > redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to distribute
> > 3rd party libraries with it, but that was tru
The CCP4 license does explicitly allow you to redistribute library
code
Phil
That's not the way I read the license. There are two sections of the
license that are contradictory, 2.1 and 2.2. Both place restrictions
on your use of the software. According to 2.1 you can distribute CCP4
sof
> Behalf Of Ethan Merritt
>
> What you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single
> program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing
> about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point
> opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge.
[*] "Ay, there's the rub
Quoting Kjeldgaard Morten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The CCP4 license does explicitly allow you to redistribute library
> > code
> > Phil
>
> That's not the way I read the license. There are two sections of the
> license that are contradictory, 2.1 and 2.2. Both place restrictions
> on your u
While it is correct that one should not try to mix GPL code with
commerical code, the use of LGPL APIs to support commercial code
(as well as to support open source code under other licenses) is
in general viable, and not likely to get you tangled with lawyers.
-- Herbert
At 1:28 PM -0700 7/3
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 12:34 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote:
> Yes. That is a more complete statement of rights under the GPL.
> Please note, however, that "the source code" to which you are
> guaranteed access is the source code to the GPL-ed program itself,
> not to pieces of the operating environment
18 matches
Mail list logo
