<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><div class="im">On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Erik Lindahl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:erik.lindahl@scilifelab.se" target="_blank">erik.lindahl@scilifelab.se</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">if you want to rely on OpenBabel, there is no legal possibility whatsoever to distribute a binary using both OpenBabel (GLPv2 only) in combination with GSL (GPLv3 or later).</div>
</blockquote></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">As the GPL FAQ admits (<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation</a>) this is an open question which might easily dependent on the jurisdiction. It might be that shared linking is fine and isn't considered a derived work. But of course not sure whether it is legal is for practical purposes not more useful than known to be illegal ;-). What seems clear is that if OpenBabel isn't used as a library but instead as external commands which are called and communicated to by using e.g. pipes than it is no problem. </div>
<div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><div><br></div><div>But, why would it be important to be able to distribute those binaries if we have no plans to distributing binaries (especially with optional features enabled)?</div>
<div><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class="im">On 06 Feb 2014, at 23:38, Erik Lindahl <<a href="mailto:erik.lindahl@scilifelab.se" target="_blank">erik.lindahl@scilifelab.se</a>> wrote:</div><div class="im"><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">However, personally I will vote against accepting patches into the main Gromacs codebase that rely on large external libraries that are are not compatlble with LGPLv2 since that will just cause further fractioning and large parts of the source code that are not tested by default. Such things are better distributed as separate programs, IMHO.</div>
</blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">Not sure why testing would be affected by the license. We currently also test with FFTW. </div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Roland</div></div>