New xdrlib information in AUTHORS and LICENSE is missing/outdated

[mnmelo]

I'm opening this as a reminder so as not to let 0.14.0 ship without these fixes.

The new license aspects of xdrlib are outdated. The Gromacs base is now BSD.
We also haven't decided if the name libxdrfile2 stays, or if we call our modifications something else: with @kain88-de's cython approach (#441) and splitting of xtc_seek.c/trr_seek.c from xdrfile.c (#661) there is less of a clear new library to speak of.
@orbeckst has advocated keeping the name. I agree with that.
Right now we don't provide an actual libxdrfile2.so or libxdrfile2.a, but rather a mix of that with cython bindings (called xdrlib.so). This gets confusing but xdrlib.so could be renamed libxdrfile2 to keep the external appearance and conform to the name we were using before.

[kain88-de]

xdrlib.so could be renamed libxdrfile2 to keep the external appearance and conform to the name we were using before.

Sure we can also name it to libxdrfile2. Or libxdrfile3 to sow that there has been an update.

[jbarnoud]

It could also be a different name to avoid confusion if the original libxdrfile get a major update. Also, xdrlib.so is confusing as there is a xdrlib module in the python standard library.

[orbeckst]

We should have a name different from the original gromacs one.

• libxdrfile3
• libmdaxdr
• libgmxtraj
• libxtctrr

...

Oliver Beckstein
email: orbeckst@gmail.com

Am Jan 29, 2016 um 1:49 schrieb Jonathan Barnoud notifications@github.com:

It could also be a different name to avoid confusion if the original libxdrfile get a major update. Also, xdrlib.so is confusing as there is a xdrlib module in the python standard library.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[kain88-de]

I like libmdaxdr

[mnmelo]

I second @kain88-de's suggestion or something slightly more readable, like libmda_xdr.

More opinions?

[mnmelo]

Oops, it was actually @orbeckst's idea. Anyway, it has my vote (or the underscore version).
It also gets rid of the numbering (as in libxdrfile2), which gets mistaken for versioning.

[richardjgowers]

I don't think those names ever have underscores in them for some reason? (libblas, libgfortran, liblapack?)

[mnmelo]

Yea, a quick search through my own system shows that the usage of underscores seems to be mainly to distinguish different complile/linking versions of the same library.

So we stick to libmdaxdr. I'll make the changes. Anyone opposed?

[kain88-de]

No sounds good to me

[mnmelo]

@kain88-de, I'm having trouble finding the newer, BSD-licensed, version of libxdrfile from the Gromacs people. Could you point me to it?

[kain88-de]

http://www.gromacs.org/Developer_Zone/Programming_Guide/XTC_Library

This is the most recent version I can find, according to version numbers. The website says that it is licensed under LGPL but when you open the tarball you'll notice that the license in the files used is BSD. Surprisingly that is not the version they have in their git repository, the git repo has an older version licensed under LGPL.

[hainm]

@kain88-de you should contact GROMACS dev for correct answer.