Can we use the weight of the neural net learned with the MIT-BIH dataset for commercial purposes?

Question

MIT-BIH is here. https://physionet.org/physiobank/database/mitdb/

I found a page about licenses, but I did not know about commercial availability of learned models.

license description is here. https://physionet.org/faq.shtml#license see "What are the license terms?" I quote the relevant part about the data license.

There is nothing analogous to the GPL for data, but we permit copying and redistribution of unaltered data from this site without restrictions, in the spirit of the GPL. We do not allow distribution of altered data except under conditions that make it clear that the data have been altered, because it is very important that users should be able to distinguish between original data from this site and modified versions of those data.

Thank you very much if you tell me. And I am very sorry if it was not an appropriate question here.

EDIT

After I posted this question, I found a kaggle page that also distributes the same data. https://www.kaggle.com/mondejar/mitbih-database On that page, the license is CC0: Public Domain. Can I trust this license although the kaggle page is not original ? If so, I think I can use the weights of models freely.

Answer 1

So as I understand it, your question relates to the licensing of the data they make available, and not using their software in a commercial application.

if that's correct, that's a licensing implosion @ https://physionet.org/faq.shtml#license.

Here's I reckon the words they use there would be interpreted like this:

• "The software is licensed under the GNU Public License (GPL)" [so you can use this if you want]

• "(if noted in the source files) other licenses that conform to the Open Source Definition. These licenses permit verbatim copying and redistribution of the source files, and generally grant other permissions as well."

  [So this means you can use any licence which conforms to this description, which include these, because apparently they apparently conform with the OSI's own definition (I'm not about to check)].

• "For further details, see Can I use your code in my commercial application? (below)." Not relevant to question you have asked.

• "There is nothing analogous to the GPL for data, but we permit copying and redistribution of unaltered data from this site without restrictions, in the spirit of the GPL. We do not allow distribution of altered data except under conditions that make it clear that the data have been altered, because it is very important that users should be able to distinguish between original data from this site and modified versions of those data."

  Sorry to be the person that says this. The GPL starts with the definition:

  “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations.

  So the GPL applies to "any copyrightable work". Well, if the data can be protected by copyright (and it can), it can be licensed under the GPL. Badly though - but that's a commercial question, not a question of law.

  So when they say, "There is nothing analogous to the GPL for data ... in the spirit of the GPL", the statement is probably too vague to have any legal meaning (or legal effect).

  What it would probably do is set up an estoppel argument in your favour if you ever did license it under the GPL or similar.

  What they're really saying is - "yeah sure, use the data, don't alter it, but if you do, record that you have changed it, and make it clear what you have changed"

• on balance, what they seem to be saying (in substance) is the BSD style licences are OK with us, with an additional requirement of telling licensees that you have changed the data, and what you have changed.