Tim Cutts <tjrc1 at mole.bio.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <6bla0c$a1h$1 at nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> Greg <jquinn at shell7.ba.best.com> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >Sorry if I've missed a post on this, but I was looking for the gcg v9
> >version of EGCG and I couldn't see it at the EBI site. Does anyone know
> >whether it's been released?
> I'm sure Peter will volunteer a more detailed explanation, but it's due to
> GCG's much more restrictive licensing in GCG 9 and later. You can't build
> the EGCG stuff without a source licence (which is fair enough) but what is
> really silly is that Peter can't even distribute it in binary form either.
> Please, GCG, can there be an intermediate source licence where we have the
> headers and libraries, so we can at least compile third party software,
> without needing the full program source? After all, that's the way most
> libraries are distributed.
Tim, Thanks for this info. This is really rather unfortunate, since I
have just gotten GCG thinking that the EGCG stuff was also still
available. From a marketing point of view, I can't think that this is in
GCG's favor; I wonder if they would allow it to be distributed on the
CDROM as 'unsupported'?
