Dear Colleagues,
May I suggest that, at this point, we all need a clarification
of the licensing for the libraries in CCP4 (as distinct from
the licensing for the programs). The community as a whole would
benefit from an unambiguous release of the current libraries (as
opposed to the next to cur
To me it seems that clause 2.1.1 of the CCP4 academic license says that one
can distribute work derived from or using the CCP4 libraries provided that it
complies with clause 2.1.2
The last sentence in clause 2.1.2 says it itself becomes void if the derived
work is distributed under the GPL or L
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 23:21:33 -0700 Tim Fenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the reason most folks have problems with the licensing on the
> ccp4 *libraries* is that the ccp4 format for maps and reflection files
> should be an *open* format - the way it stands now, without writing
> your own
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:36:29 +0200 "George M. Sheldrick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The SHELX license agreement has had an 'indemnity clause' in it
> for the last 30 years and no-one has complained about it yet! See:
> http://shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de/SHELX/applfrm.htm
>
I think the reason most fol
The SHELX license agreement has had an 'indemnity clause' in it
for the last 30 years and no-one has complained about it yet! See:
http://shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de/SHELX/applfrm.htm
George
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goett
I was speaking imprecisely. I will try again.
You cannot create a derived work containing both CCP4 6.* licensed code
and GPL'd code, and distribute the resulting program, since the GPL
demands that the derived work be distributed without additional
restirctions and the CCP4 6.* license impose
Ahh, yes. And this is the result of nearly 3 years of trying to
square our desire to release the libraries under as open a license as
possible, while the lawyers try and cover the organisation's backside
in case someone wants to sue. I believe an attempt was made to
ensure that third par
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
Ethan Merritt
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
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 sa
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
f Of Ethan Merritt
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
>
> On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:09, Michel Fodje wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote:
> > >
> &
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
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 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 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 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, 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
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, 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 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
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 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
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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
