Hi Leif,
I added 2 pipes to buildin.py:
- publish_html creates static HTML views of IDPs and SPs, using XSLT based on Peter Schober’s alternative to MET;
- publish_split: similar to store, but added validUntil and creates signed XML-file per EntityDescriptor. This can be consumed dynamically by ADFS in an IDP role.
I put it directly into buildin.py because it shares some code with the sign pipe. Is this viable from your PoV - if yes, I would make an PR.
Cheers, Rainer
Hi all,
being part of Commons Conservancy brought up yet another subject,
which is whether we should add a header with license information in
every file in the projects under idpy. This is not something done in
an abstract way, there is a specific format modelling this information
(see https://spdx.org/ and https://reuse.software/ - more specifically
https://reuse.software/practices/2.0/) Still, I find it problematic.
We want to open up the question to the wider community and consider
their thoughts on this. The forwarded message below is discussing this
subject. You can see the question we posed, the answer we got and my
comments. Feel free to tell us what you think on this.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 at 09:56
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: May 8, 2019, 8:15 AM -0700
>
> > Why does CC think having a single license file per project is
> > insufficient? Our thought is that if we can avoid adding a header to
> > every single file, that would be nice, esp. given we already have this
> > info in the license file and we have the Note Well.
>
>
> this is not just our opinion, but something that is an industry and
> community standard for legal compliance these days. When companies like
> Siemens, Samsung or Honeywell use some code in one of the hundreds or
> thousands of devices and systems in their product line, they need to be
> able to provide the correct license and a download of the exact version.
> This means machine readability too.
>
I've actually observed the opposite of that. Communities abandon the
"license in every file" model, and just use a single LICENSE file in
the root of the project. The LICENSE file contains license
information, that is, it is not a single license but it has exception
sections and so on.
> To quote from https://reuse.software/practices/2.0/ :
>
> Scroll to the section "2. Include a copyright notice and license in each
> file"...
>
> "Source code files are often reused across multiple projects, taken from
> their origin and repurposed, or otherwise end up in repositories where
> they are separate from its origin. You should therefore ensure that all
> files in your project have a comment header that convey that file’s
> copyright and license information: Who are the copyright holders and
> under which license(s) do they release the file?
>
Continuing from above, the standardization of package-management
formats and tools has helped exactly with that: to avoid distribution
of single files, and instead provide packages and modules. It is bad
practice and considered a hack to copy files. Nobody liked that model
and everyone is moving away; it is unstructured, it becomes
unmanageable and it will cause problems.
> It is highly recommended that you keep the format of these headers
> consistent across your files. It is important, however, that you do not
> remove any information from headers in files of which you are not the
> sole author.
>
> You must convey the license information of your source code file in a
> standardised way, so that computers can interpret it. You can do this
> with an SPDX-License-Identifier tag followed by an SPDX expression
> defined by the SPDX specifications."
>
> (the text goes on for a while after this, to clarify the point but this
> is the basic gist of it)
>
> There is a nice Python tool to check:
>
> https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool
>
> I hope this makes sense
>
Well, it does not make complete sense. We're talking about licensing a
project. A project is not just code; there are data files (html, xml,
yaml, json files), binary files (archives/zip, images, audio, video,
etc), text files (configs, ini-files, etc) all "not-code". How do you
mark those files? Does the LICENSE file need a license-header? The
json format does not define comments, how do you add a header there?
If a binary file does not get a license header, why should a file with
code get one?
I would expect there to be a way to have the needed information
unified. If the files themselves cannot provide this information it
has to be external; thus the LICENSE file. If someone is worried about
somebody else re-using single files that do not have license
information (a python file, a png image, etc) there is really nothing
you can do (the DRM industry has been trying to solve for a long time;
and still your best bet is "social DRM").
Since, we're developing on open source with a permissive license, even
if someone does that, should we be happy that someone is actually
using what we built or sad that the files they copied did not have a
license header? And if they include the license information of that
copied file in their project's LICENSE file, is this solved?
Having pointed these contradictions, I am thinking that the "license
in every file" model seems to be a step backwards. It is introducing
overhead and does not really solve the problem, while at the same time
it enables a culture of bad practice (copying files around).
Cheers,
--
Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3
Attendees:
Giuseppe, Ivan, Johan, Roland, JohnP, Scott, Heather, Peter
1 - GitHub review
a. OIDC - https://github.com/IdentityPython
Released 2.0 a few weeks ago (https://github.com/IdentityPython/oidc-op/releases/tag/2.0.0) Discovered some backward compatibility issues that are being addressed; 2.1.0 will be released this week. These issues were not discovered in testing and impacted eduTEAMS in particular. We can add them in tests now that we're aware of them. Community is always encouraged to help with testing prior to releases.
What might also help: if the eduTEAMS project had routinely been making code available for others to use, some of this could be avoided as there would be more eyes on the work
Question about the OIDC front end: idpy does not maintain pyOP; we encourage people to look instead to oidc-op. For Satosa, we don't have another choice at this time. By default, we promote the new one, but it is possible to create a module to use the old one that uses pyOP. We don't really have a date for the changes as it depends on eduTEAMS.
Question about identity assurance (https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-1_0.html) Roland has most of the code, but there are handling issues. Example: if you get the information from different sources, they will verify information in different ways and you'll need to keep those separate. Roland expects to have something in another week that people can use to start testing. Assurance may relate to having a digital wallet; we haven't considered this much in the overall architectures for idpy. What about WebAuthn? Giuseppe has a PoC.
Question about logout: this is an ongoing challenge, and logout has known issues. Until those are a bit more clear in terms of what can be supported, not sure it's useful to build logout models into Satosa.
b. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA
Satosa and microservice from Peter Gietz: https://gitlab.daasi.de/didmos2/didmos2-auth, https://gitlab.daasi.de/didmos2/didmos2-auth/-/tree/master/src
Please send additional updates and questions to Slack
c. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2
Please send updates and questions to Slack
d. pyFF - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyFF
Please send updates and questions to Slack
2 - Discussion
FYI - work is continuing on creating the W3C FedID Community Group. Draft charter is here: https://github.com/hlflanagan/fedidcg. Will have a call to discuss the charter on July 6 @ 13:00 UTC.
Thanks! Heather
Hi!
I guess there will not be an idpy call Tuesday 15th ?
Due to the collision with the Geant "Trust and Identity updates and strategy consultation” call.
https://events.geant.org/event/656/ <https://events.geant.org/event/656/>
— Roland
The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make enough of them, it's considered to be your style.
-Fred Astaire, dancer, actor, singer, musician, and choreographer (10 May 1899-1987)
https://pypi.org/project/oidcop/2.0.0/ <https://pypi.org/project/oidcop/2.0.0/>
— Roland
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect, and author (1743-1826)
