I can republish the image when we find a solution for the licensing issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior
Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom
2011/11/15 Joshua Lee
<jkilee@ucdavis.edu>
It would be great if Freesurfer maintained an official AMI. One important reason to do so is security. If the AMI is maintained by the organization, then people can feel reassured that their data is not being downloaded to a compromised instance, not that any on this board would have such malicious intent. Moreover, it could contain such scripts as makes the analysis process easier.
-
Joshua Lee
Graduate Student
Center for Mind and Brain &
Department of Psychology
University of California, Davis
530.747.3805
2011/11/14 Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior
<ppj@netfilter.com.br>
Ok. I'll label as private this AMI that has .license file.
Maybe we can make a tutorial on how to create an AMI instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior
Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 21:07, Nick Schmansky
<nicks@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
Glad to hear it works well. To revisit the issue of the license (in the
form of the .license file which needs to be in the $FREESURFER_HOME
directory and the request of which is used for usage tracking), I think
the convention to follow for any publicly available AMI freesurfer
instances should be to not include a .license file with it, so as to
force the download of this file (so that freesurfer usage will be
tracked). A user need only do this once for however many times they use
the cloud instance.
N.