EGCG 9.0 and beyond

Francois JEANMOUGIN pingouin at crystal.u-strasbg.fr
Fri Mar 21 02:58:04 EST 1997

In article <5gpi1r$2nu at gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
	mathog at seqaxp.bio.caltech.edu writes:
>  (i) to adapt the SDK Source Code to create derivative works containing the 
>   SDK Source Code (the "Derivative Works");
>  (ii) to install and run a copy of the Derivative Works on computer systems 
>  licensed under the Customer's Standard Agreement and Customer's License 
>  Extensions but Customer may not distribute, or allow the distribution of, 
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       
>  any Derivative Work to any third party.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (Emphasis mine). There is no wiggle room in there at all.[...]

	Well, I carefully thought to all of that yesterday, at home, 
earing "dead can dance" which make you feel cool :-), (and , yes,
with a Douglas scotch ale in the hand...).
	First, I understood that GCG wanted to protect their code,
and wanted to have a sort of feed-back by collecting little
applications modifications needed by the users. So they make the
tool kit, and the first version we saw was a "binary tk" with
only libraries and header files (and a manual, of course).
	Well, I think they had complaints from some managers about
the sources, because a little modification of a programm can be made
in only some minutes, and asking GCG programmers for that could take
more (at least due to time difference around the world). So they 
assume they have to send the sources too. But they also have to protect
the sources, due to their inclusion in an SDK.

	As we understand it (like Fred says), you will not be able
to distribute modified SDK source code, but you will be able to
distribute home-made programms that uses GCG libraries.
	Also, little modifications of programms should go back to
GCG if you want to share it, that makes the feed-back.

	So, GCG wanted to be compliant as far as possible, but
the result seems to be completely unexpected, with you David,
and perhaps with other people completely paranoiac-free and
GPL addicts ;-). But we have to go to the evidence, that GCG
is no more a university group, it's a commercial group now,
and the mutation took years. I hope they will stay in the
actual policy, which is supportable, I think.

	Hope this will show all of you a better view on GCG
development (and, no, I didn't receive cash from GCG for that
post ;-).

Francois Jeanmougin
Service de bioinformatique / bioinformatics service
IGBMC BP 163 67404 Illkirch France
tel :(France) 03 88 65 32 71 / (international) (+33) 3 88 65 32 71
e-mail : jeanmougin at igbmc.u-strasbg.fr
C'est pas parcequ'on monte au banc, qu'il faut descendre a jeun (Thiefaine)

More information about the Info-gcg mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net