[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Are ASN.1 modules code or specification?

Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> writes:

> Hello,
> Do we consider ASN.1 modules (e.g. the specification of
> AttCertValidityPeriod in rfc 3281) to be code or specification?
> On one hand the rfc coyright fixup for "code components" in newer
> RFCs (post Nov 2008) explicitely includes ASN.1 modules as one of
> the things being made available under BSD licenses. Which implies that
> they are code, or at least that somebody thought clarification could not
> hurt.
> On the other hand these modules are a core part of the standards the
> RFCs describe, they are not fundamentally different to e.g. the BNF
> notation specification of mail messages in rfc 2821.
> Do we have a strong opinion in Debian about this? It is not uncommon to
> directly generate C source from ASN.1 modules. We could not do this if we
> considered the ASN.1 code. (Except for new RFCs and re-licensed RFCs)

Hi!  I believe the whole distinction between what is code and what is
specification was a mistake that the IETF did.  As far as I know, Debian
does not care, as long as the license is free.  If the IETF is clear
that ASN.1 modules are BSD licensed, I don't think there is any problem
for Debian -- or what would the problem be?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: