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 ;)]
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.
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 ;)]