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 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 library to access ccp4 files (and this is where ambiguity sets in and I find the CCP4-type license completely lacking - can I look at the source code from CCP4 and develop my own library based on what I learn from the code? Does it also matter if I'm a commercial versus academic user?), there is *no way* you can redistribute a program that depends on CCP4 formatted files without simply including said program in the CCP4 distribution. The next best thing is to use the last redistributable verson of the library, which seems to be what the bulk of folks are doing these days. With shelx its a non-issue, since (most) of the files it produces are ascii. The fact that most crystallographic programs use an "academics-are-free, commercial-users-pay" style for all their licenses with all kinds of additional conditionals (please give us all your personal information and sign here, here and there!) also drives me up a wall, but thats another story. So yes, I strongly disagree with the SHELX license, but since its so frequently done amongst the crystallographic community, I've almost come to expect it. Regards, Tim -- --------------------------------------------------------- Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanford University, School of Medicine James H. Clark Center 318 Campus Drive, Room E300 Stanford, CA 94305-5432 Phone: (650) 736-1714 FAX: (650) 736-1961 ---------------------------------------------------------
