Re: [AMBER] AmberTools vs. Amber: Installation practice subject to different licenses - Solved.

From: Sternberg, Michael G. <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:36:54 +0000

Jason, all,

Thank you for the reminder - you are correct about point 3 in the license. From the lack of other responses I take it that this is not a pressing issue. I was asking because sensibilities were raised by the terms of several commercial vendors, both related and unrelated to materials modeling.

That said, on review, I noticed the -noamber configure option (new in AmberTools-12), and I was able to use that to indeed make two builds with minimal fuss from a single build script. Users will load one of two mutually exclusive environment modules to get access, each setting AMBERHOME appropriately, with the "amber" directory being group-restricted, and "ambertools" not.

With best regards,

On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:46 , Jason Swails <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Sternberg, Michael G. <>wrote:
>> I envision having to install AmberTools twice, once standalone,
>> world-accessible, and again in another directory as part of Amber,
>> accessible only to a specific UNIX group.
> Oooh, Gaussian :) (only without the GPL part)
>> I'd love to be proven wrong on this because maintaining two installs seems
>> like a recipe for confusion at best, requiring duplicate build scripts and
>> patch management. I looked at the FAQ page
>> but it's rather ancient and has no
>> specifics on installation.
> If your HPC has a license for Amber, then you can make it available to all
> of your users (if you have for-profit users, like pharma employees, they
> may need their own license).
> See point 3 at the bottom of here:,
> which should cover you.
> In short, I've never seen a supercomputer center install and support
> separate versions for licensing issues.
> HTH,
> Jason

AMBER mailing list
Received on Wed Jan 29 2014 - 12:00:02 PST
Custom Search