[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Health] Question about license of ICD10 data

From: Edgar Hagenbichler
Subject: Re: [Health] Question about license of ICD10 data
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 21:48:16 +0200

Dear Luis,
dear Sebastian,

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Health <address@hidden> Im Auftrag von Luis Falcon
Gesendet: Samstag, 31. März 2018 21:06

>> Dear all,
>> I am from DBpedia, which focuses on Open Data. We would like to load
>> ICD-10 on the new DBpedia Databus, but we are a bit unsure because of 
>> the license.
>> Our questions are:
>> 1. How did you manage to get this data under the GPL license?
>The GNU Health project is GPL v3+, thus the package health_icd10.
>We have created the XML data files from the public ICD10 definition. 

As I understand this, the "content" of ICD-10 is free, but if you e.g. scan a 
for the format and fonts the publisher has a copyright. 
If you take it from an electronic publisher
like DIMDI, the characters which form the word and phrases of ICD-10 and which 
are published by the publisher are licensed under the copyright of the 
but not the content itself.

At least if there is an obligation by law to use this ICD-10 in some cases.
If you rewrite the content "by hand", in that sense that you type it by your 
it is your own intellectual property,
and you can license this as you like, e.g. CC0 or GNU GPL.

But if you make a scan or a "copy and paste", the electronic publisher 
(e.g. DIMDI) has its right to protect it,
and sometimes they could "hide" some special characters in their electronic 
Then they would find it, if you made a "copy and paste".
And I guess, that in the GNU Health edition some volunteers typed it 
by their own or took it from a CC0-source.

>> 2. DBpedia will be (Open Data Commons Attribution License) ODC-By with 
>> the individual parts licensed under other licenses ranging from
>> CC-0 to BY, SA and NC . However, we don't know how we can treat the 
>> GPL for data.
>> Probably like this: if you derive a database from a GPL source the 
>> some sort of copyleft has to apply, but no attribution? If the data is 
>> used in a program it is CC-0 as it falls under the communication part, 
>> i.e. application communicating with the database software:
>> erived_works
For the general case with GNU GPL I do not know.

>I would suggest that if you take the GNU Health datafiles as source, 
>you can give us credit in a way you feel appropriate. 
>The ICD10 codes are already at Wikipedia as CC SA. See
>But, most importantly, I am not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it, 
>specially on the use.
The same counts for me 😉


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]