On 7/30/10 9:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > I am forwarding the following open request from OpenEye through the > InChI-discuss list. Now that gthe details are clear I would be grateful > if the critical aspects could be re-reviewed. > > There is an issue for me and a co-author and I'd like to know > authoritatively what the implications of re-licensing are. If they are > compelling for relicensing I will probably need little persuasion - if > they are not, I'll consider. > > FWIW it highlights the problem of multiple authors. The permission of > all authors is required, and of course they may not be locatable.
OpenEye should first consider whether they're willing to relicense their contributions to OpenBabel under a less restrictive license. They've been asked several times, and have ignored the requests. It's not an academic question. The OpenBabel team is currently trying to rewrite everything that OpenEye ever contributed to OpenBabel, specifically because of the GPL licensing problems and OpenEye's silence on this issue. This is an unfortunate waste of talent that could be spent improving science rather than rewriting old code. Open source is a two way street. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Palm PDK Hot Apps Program offers developers who use the Plug-In Development Kit to bring their C/C++ apps to Palm for a share of $1 Million in cash or HP Products. Visit us here for more details: http://p.sf.net/sfu/dev2dev-palm _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
