Starting work on the shibboleth-sp2 packages

[Scott Cantor]

> > It most likely does, and it's just an oversight or lack of attention
> > that the schemas don't carry the same notice.
> 
> Do you know where I would ask?

I can ask somebody privately and avoid creating a big mess about it before
we know the story.

> Sega v. Accolade is probably the most relevant case law (at least the most
> relevant that I could find quickly):

I think there's a big distinction here:

> | industry demands... In some circumstances, even the exact set of
> | commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than
> | creative for the purposes of copyright.  When specific instructions,
> | even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of
> | accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount
> | to infringement.

That doesn't say to me it's not copyrightable at all. It talks about
infringement of copyright (meaning you had to be able to copyright to begin
with), where "using" them implies that the method names have to appear in
your code or your own interface in some way. That's very different than
actually re-publishing the header in some way, or extending it.

> In other words, the theory is that if a given XML schema or a given set of
> function prototypes express the only and essential means of interface with
> an application implementing a protocol or with a library, they're not
> creative and hence do not fall under copyright law.

That's a pretty strong reading of that text, primarily around what "use" is
limited to, but like I said, I'll look into it for my own interest.

-- Scott