Re: Bug#429693: ITP: libegad -- rational protein design library
Laurent Fousse <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Frank Küster [Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:13:52PM +0200]:
>> Cool, in particular that it's neither LGPL nor one of the usual "must
>> not change for scientific integrity" licenses. Finally a structural
>> biologist who has understood free software.
> What's wrong with LGPL?
Nothing. I was thinking more along the lines: "LGPL would be a logical
choice for such a library. The fact that they took GPL might indicate
that they have exactly the same fear about improper code reuse as all
those others who use non-free licenses, but habe understood that there
are more clever ways to prevent such 'secret' code reuse".
> Is it particular to the field of structural biology?
At least we have lots of programs which just bitrot because the
Ph.D. student who wrote and maintained it has long left, but the license
forbids modification. And if you ask them about the license, either you
get no answer, or something about other people using their code without
proper scientific quoting, or in commercial proprietary products.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)