Andreas Metzler <ametz...@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? /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
