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
*Idpy meeting 10 October 2023*
Attendees: Johan, Matthew, Hannah, Shayna
0 - Agenda bash
1 - Project review
a. General -
b. OIDC libraries - https://github.com/IdentityPython (idpy-oidc,
JWTConnect-Python-CryptoJWT, etc)
c. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA
- Everyone who had attended the SATOSA PR-431 SLO review felt it went
well. Matthew E. was encouraged to see that limitations to pysaml2 were
acknowledged. Shayna will reach out to Ali H. for updates on when he
has/will push his changes so he and Hannah S. can collaborate on a vision
for single logout.
- Matthew E. is working on SATOSA container - he knows the current one
is out of date. Ivan merged some changes on pyop and Matthew has a better
understanding of the newer oidc libraries, so he wants to come up with a
working test config for oidc and include it into the sample configuration
of the container. He is not sure where to find a test OP.
d. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2
e. Any other project (pyFF, djangosaml2, pyMDOC-CBOR, etc)
2 - AOB
- Next meeting is 24 October 2023.
On 2023-10-05 15:24, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> I'm a little uncomfortable accepting a project sight-unseen. Are you
> willing to make sure it conforms to idpy's code guidelines in a
> reasonable amount of time if/when it's accepted under the project umbrella?
>
Absolutely. We may just publish it under BSD-2 under the wwwallet.org
organization on github and then talk about its future!
Cheers Leif
A clarification: there is very little python today in the project. We
are working on this but I want to be clear that this is a borderline for
idpy because of this.
Cheers Leif
On 2023-10-04 23:23, Giuseppe De Marco wrote:
> Very interesting and useful!
>
> Is there any GitHub/bitbucket/gitlab public repository to have a quick
> dive in its sources?
We would like to hold off on publishing the source until we know where
it should land...
>
> I assume that It represents an entire wallet solution, composed by
> wallet provider and wallet app, and that the wallet app Is a web based
> app, not intender for any appstore
Correct.
>
> Congrats, It looks good
>
>
>
> Il mer 4 ott 2023, 22:09 Leif Johansson <leifj(a)sunet.se
> <mailto:leifj@sunet.se>> ha scritto:
>
>
> Hello
>
> Today I represent the "unnamed FIDO wallet" project (aka
> wwwallet.org <http://wwwallet.org>).
> This is a project started by GUNet, Sunet and yubico with the goal of
> building a FIDO-based wallet based on OpenID4vc and vp profiles and
> sd-jwt credentials.
>
> We would like to propose this project for inclusion in idpy.
>
> The project is in an early phase but we are confident that it has the
> potential to become a staple of the wallet ecosystem because of its
> simple design. The organizations are currently funding the work within
> the framework of the EU digital wallet LSPs
>
> The backend of the project is python and pretty clearly in scope of the
> idpy family of projects (beeing all about identity) but since there is
> web involved there are other technologies present such as html and js.
> We believe python-based WASM could play a role in the project in the
> future. Our goals is to make a scalable fully secure "cloud" wallet
> with
> support for multiple credential and registry technologies.
>
> The project is in its infancy but needs an organizational home. Funding
> is not a problem for the next few years at least at which point we hope
> interest in a web based FIDO-wallet will make this a self-sustaining
> part of the idpy family. The project does not have a separate webpage
> yet and we are hoping for a decision in idpy before we bring the first
> public version of the code into the idpy org on github. We plan to
> publish under a BSD-2 license.
>
> We are already well integrated into the idpy family of projects and
> plan
> to use satosa as our primary issuer/verifier implementation for testing
> and development.
>
> A public demo is available at demo.wwwallet.org
> <http://demo.wwwallet.org>
>
> Best R
> Leif
> _______________________________________________
> Idpy-discuss mailing list -- idpy-discuss(a)lists.sunet.se
> <mailto:idpy-discuss@lists.sunet.se>
> To unsubscribe send an email to idpy-discuss-leave(a)lists.sunet.se
> <mailto:idpy-discuss-leave@lists.sunet.se>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Il banner è generato automaticamente dal servizio di posta elettronica
> dell'Università della Calabria
> https://www.unical.it/5x1000 <https://www.unical.it/5x1000>
