Re: Are ASN.1 modules code or specification?
On 2020-05-17 Simon Josefsson <email@example.com> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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.
> 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?
The problem is not about the ASN.1 modules in the new RFCs but about
those from the old RFCs, which were *not* explicitely licenced as free
If we consider these old ASN.1 modules software we have a problem, if we
think they are specification, comparable to BNF in RFC 821 we do not.
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'