Looking at the private dictionary for pydicom:
http://code.google.com/p/pydicom/
It says:
http://code.google.com/p/pydicom/source/browse/source/generate_dict/make_private_dict.py
...
# Generates output from a file from the MDCM project (http://code.google.com/p/mdcm),
...
The only issue is that mdcm is LGPL, while pydicom claims to be MIT... There is a clear conflict of license here.
So I filled in a bug report:
http://code.google.com/p/pydicom/issues/detail?id=61&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Milestone%20Owner%20Summary%20Difficulty
I cannot believe they prefered to used the dictionary from mdcm, instead of using the easy-to-parse XML dictionary from GDCM
http://gdcm.svn.sf.net/viewvc/gdcm/trunk/Source/DataDictionary/privatedicts.xml?view=markup
oh well...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The pydicom code always says "based on an MIT license" and refers to the license.txt file for more details. That file includes mdcm and GDCM licenses with respect to the file used by make_private_dict.py.
No files from either project are copied directly by pydicom; the file in question is used as data for a conversion. When I first examined this, I thought that such use did not require extension of LGPL to pydicom, but nevertheless included the reference in the license statement for full disclosure.
Unfortunately, google code website does not allow such fine distinctions. I have changed the google code site to LGPL until this can be addressed.
You suggestion to use the GDCM XML private dictionary is a good one. I would gladly have used it, but was not aware of it until now.
Post a Comment