NONMEM 7 Update

From: Wojciech Jawien Date: July 03, 2009 technical Source: mail-archive.com
Dear Alison, I agree that open source as defined by Open Source Initiative never applied to the NONMEM. In my previous email I used the term "open software", and it was also imprecise. But until now, NONMEM wasn't a blackbox, either. You are writing (the provisions of the former UCSF license agreement) do not allow anyone to take NONMEM and develop it on their own. It's not exactly what the point 3.1 says: 3.1 LICENSEE shall have the right to copy and *modify* the LICENSED PRODUCTS for use on a single computer of LICENSEE ... I understand licensees could develop NONMEM on their own provided they never try to disseminate neither original nor modified code. It makes difference. Regards Wojciech

Thread

View all 21 messages
Jul 01, 2009 Thomas Ludden NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 02, 2009 Doug J. Eleveld RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 02, 2009 William Bachman RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 02, 2009 Thomas Ludden RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 02, 2009 Wojciech Jawien Re: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Hkag RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Buclin Thierry RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Henrik Agersø RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Serge Guzy Re: RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Joachim Grevel RE: RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Doug J. Eleveld RE: RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Alison Boeckmann RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Samer Mouksassi RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Wojciech Jawien NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 03, 2009 Ziad Hussein Re: RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 04, 2009 Nick Holford Re: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 06, 2009 Alice Nichols Re: RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 06, 2009 Anthony J. Rossini Re: RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 08, 2009 Robert Bauer RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 09, 2009 Alice Nichols RE: NONMEM 7 Update
Jul 09, 2009 Alan Xiao RE: NONMEM 7 Update
← Previous
Next →