undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthesuperbigfrog5y ago0 comments

In my code generated-SDK example, a human defined the data model and a human created the code generation algorithm, but an algorithm generated the SDK code itself.

So human creativity is involved, but is not the direct creator of the SDKs. Does that count? I am not really sure.

I bring up the generated SDK example because I have used just such a system when I worked at a major corporation: I created a data model in Web Services Description Language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Services_Description_Langu...) and used a company-owned tool to generate SDKs in various programming languages. All of the generated SDKs had the company's copyright notice in the generated code.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

eqvinox5y ago· 1 in thread

IANAL, but:

The code generated SDK is a derivative work of the human-defined data model - just like the binary for any piece of software is derivative of the source code. (Otherwise where'd the copyright for the binary come from?)

The generator's copyright (or the compiler's) doesn't directly flow in. (But if the generator/compiler incorporates pieces of itself, like a support library, that does. Also, the generator/compiler might have terms of use...)

If you write a generator that just generates random APIs, those are basically machine generated garbage and wouldn't be copyrightable. The human input to the generator is missing.

[FWIW, I had to research this due to an "ill-behaved" community member on an open source project a few years back; I'm not completely making this up out of thin air. That still doesn't make me a lawyer though ;)]

ghaff5y ago

My understanding is that the copyrightability of binaries was something of a gray area for a time even after the copyrightability of source code was established. Apple v. Franklin is probably the most relevant court case.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse