Copyrighting schemas -- derivation

[Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>]

Since my last post got buried in an avalanche, I'm resubmitting under a new
topic heading in hopes someone will see it and respond. Please excuse the
repetition.

Mundane, to-the-point answers are appreciated, such as 'yes' or 'no'. (Yes,
I realize which list I am posting too.)

> Can I ask a more basic question here?
> 
> If I import a copyrighted schema, am I violating copyright? 
> I'm not actually
> duplicating the schema, so I can't see as I am. 
> 
> If it's a simple type:
> 
> What if I restrict one of the facets of the simple types of 
> that schema? I'm
> not really  copying anything, just restricting facets that 
> may or may not
> already be restricted in the (copyrighted) base type. Is the 
> new type my
> own? Can I copyright my restricted simple type?
> 
> If it's a complex type:
> 
> 1) If I extend it, I'm only referencing he copyrighted 
> original as a base,
> and adding some new attributes and element definitions to it. 
> Is the new
> type my own? Can I copyright my extended type?
> 
> 2) Ah, this is where it gets tricky: to restrict a complex 
> type, I have to
> reiterate all it's declarations, i.e., *copy* them. So it 
> seems like I would
> be in trouble restricting a copyrighted complex base type, 
> since I can't do
> it without copy large parts of the base type.
> 
> Bring in the XML Schema attorneys, I need a lawyer.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 4:14 AM
> > To: Henry S. Thompson
> > Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> > Subject: Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
> > 
> > 
> > On 01 Jun 2001 15:54:13 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > > Shirky's worry doesn't fit with my understanding of copyright.  A
> > > copyright is not a patent.  A work must clearly be derived _in its
> > > expression_, not its substance, from the original, to be an 
> > infringing
> > > derivative.  Otherwise for example no songs about, well, almost
> > > anything, would be publishable.
> > 
> > I guess my concern is whether the courts would interpret it 
> > that way, or
> > whether they would find that a compatible but 
> not-created-by-Microsoft
> > schema was a derived work.  I can see that going either 
> way, and with
> > current trends in copyright, I don't feel much certainty.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> > <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> > 
> > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@lists.xml.org
> > 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@lists.xml.org
>