In article <5gmgg7$6ls at lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, tjrc1 at mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Tim Cutts) writes:
> In article <E78sxI.ouM at ebi.ac.uk>, Rodrigo Lopez <rls at ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>o getting GCG to distribute the header with the standard licence (for free or
>> for a small additional fee)
>> That would be perfect; some sort of link kit with header files. GCG
> don't then give us source code, but we can still compile third-party
> addons... GCG.com are you reading this?
I spoke with someone at GCG about this (among other licensing options,
such as concurrent use and library licensing) shortly after 9.0 was
released, and they said they would consider this during their discussions
about the source code licensing policy. I haven't heard back from them,
but I also haven't seen any public anouncement of the policy, so it
may still be an active issue.
If the goal of GCG's change in licensing is to keep information about
their API restricte, then a set of header files is a significant
disclosure. However, if their goal is simply to make cut-and-paste
plagiarism a bit more difficult, then returning the header files to
the base kit might strike a useful balance between GCG's desire to
protect their code and the customers' desire to continue using the
package in the manner to which they've become accustomed.
Charles Bailey bailey at genetics.upenn.edu