# License violation

**Category:** [Implementers (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/implementers-archive/158)
**Created:** 2006-09-08 08:46 UTC
**Views:** 3
**Replies:** 3
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/license-violation/14564

---

## Post #1 by @system

I found the license box in the Archetype Editor which states it is an open source product, licensed under GPL\. \(version 3\)

Version: MPL 1\.1/GPL 2\.0/LGPL 2\.1

I hope the sourcecode will be published soon, because at this moment, the GPL is violated, which is a bad thing to see happen\.

regards
Bert Verhees

---

## Post #2 by @system

Bert Verhees schreef:
> I found the license box in the Archetype Editor which states it is an open source product, licensed under GPL\. \(version 3\)

I meant, the Archetype Editor version 3, not GPL version 3, stupid

excuse me

bert

---

## Post #3 by @erik.sundvall

Hi\!

> Bert Verhees schreef:
> > I found the license box in the Archetype Editor which states it is an
> > open source product, licensed under GPL\. \(version 3\)

Sorry about that\. The Licence box should have been disabled in the
pre\-releases\. My mistake\. I did not inspect the stuff well enough and
Mattias is not responsible for licencing issues\.

> I meant, the Archetype Editor version 3, not GPL version 3, stupid
> excuse me

There is no version 3 but you probably mean 0\.3\.\.\.

> > I hope the sourcecode will be published soon,

Yes it will \(as we have indicated previously\)\. There is conference in
a few weeks \(http://www.hiww.org/smcs2006/) where we will present a
scientific paper about the editor an a few nice extensions to it\. We
plan to have a somewhat more polished release, including source code,
then\.

> >because at this moment,
> > the GPL is violated, which is a bad thing to see happen\.

Please calm down and have a bit more patience\. We thought people would
benefit from, and be glad to have a look at pre\-releases \- maybe we
should have avoided a binary release before we had time to clean
things up, we'll try to remember that next time\.

Now, if you really have an urgent need to get the source \_before\_ the
conference, please contact me personally with information on how you
wish to obtain the source code, for example:
\- an email address that can receive \_large\_ attachments
\- or send a blank CDR with return postage \(valid from Sweden\) to:
  Erik Sundvall
  Linköpings universitet
  Inst\. för medicinsk teknik
  Universitetssjukhuset
  S\-581 85 Linköping
Sweden

Best regards,
Erik Sundvall

---

## Post #4 by @system

>
> Please calm down and have a bit more patience\. We thought people would
> benefit from, and be glad to have a look at pre\-releases \- maybe we
> should have avoided a binary release before we had time to clean
> things up, we'll try to remember that next time\.

Thanks for your reply, I did not mean to hurry you\.

It is not for me, it was someone who sometimes works with me who pointed me to this\.
Anyway, it is important that GPL is done right\.
>
> Now, if you really have an urgent need to get the source \_before\_ the
> conference, please contact me personally with information on how you
> wish to obtain the source code, for example:
> \- an email address that can receive \_large\_ attachments
> \- or send a blank CDR with return postage \(valid from Sweden\) to:

I am not really in a urge, I am very busy right now, and have no time for other things\. But I really want to have the sourcecode, in the near future, because, it could well be that I have plans with it, and it will save me lots of time, to be able to use the sourcecode\. But as noone is, I am not sure of what I do in the future, I only have thoughts about it\.

I wait until the conference, I understand that it is important to clean up the code\.

Thanks
Bert Verhees

---


**Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/license-violation/14564
**Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/license-violation/14564