OpenSAML user discussion

[Cecilia Ramirez <>]

Please remove me from this. Thank you,kindly. 


George Stanchev <> wrote:
>  I see the boost logging library is a draft only so that's not an option.
>
> How about log4cxx? Its under apache license. Do you know if that would
> do
> the trick?
>
> The test cases are not that big of a deal because they just supplement
> the
> library and are not essential for its operation. And so if we tell our
> consumers - go and get xmltooling such and such version and link against
> it,
> it will not require them to run the tests.
>
> Logging is tough issue though. If not possible to replace the library
> with
> a non-LGPLed one, at least building without logging support would help
> a lot. I don't now if the method signatures would be a problem, but
> that's
> a much easier case to plead than having a hard
>  dependency on LGPLed
> component. 
>
> George Stanchev
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:] 
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:18 PM
> To: 
> Subject: RE: dependencies licensing question
>
> > I suspect nothing can be done for OpenSAML 1, but is there anywhere 
> > where I can plead a case of switching the logging and unit testing to 
> > a framework with license that is liberal enough and compatible with
> yours?
>
> You can plead your case, but I have basically no time to spend on this
> right now and I have strict requirements for:
> - shared library and dynamic loader friendliness
> - thread safety
> - Windows compatibility and "attitude-friendliness"
> - no-hassle builds across Linux, Solaris, Mac, etc.
>
> > I know boost has both frameworks under MIT-similar license,
>
> Boost is unfortunately a non-starter until they stop relying on Jam to
> build it.
>  Without autoconf support, it isn't something I can use. The
> last time I saw somebody ask about that a few years back, somebody
> involved indicated that they weren't interested in whether people used
> their code in distributed projects, it was a testbed for future C++
> standard submissions.
> That's great for them, but not so great for me.
>
> Aside from that, I'm not sure what logging you're referring to. I see a
> test package, but nothing to do with logging.
>
> > Pantheios is another logging framework that actually allow you to 
> > extend it with log4cpp and such but itself is under BSD-style license.
>
> I glanced at it a while back, but it pulls in a major dependency that is
> going to stress C++ compilers, and is nothing at all like log4cpp, so
> it's not like it's a simple change. And this would affect Shibboleth
> moreso than this code, so it's not something I can treat lightly.
>
> > Either that or wrapping the logging around
>  conditional statements so 
> > the library could be build without any logging to avoid LGPL polution.
>
> Wouldn't the presence of such code be enough to trigger whatever
> paranoia is underlying this? Some of the anti-LGPL issues seem to be
> based on the question of whether having method signatures inside the
> code triggers licensing concerns even if you don't distribute the actual
> library.
>  
> As far as unit testing is concerned, I like this one a lot, it's a
> painless thing for source builders to install on Unix, and I don't have
> time right now to go learning something else. We could just omit the
> tests from the build with some minor makefile changes. I used to do that
> and it's not as though I'm any good at writing them anyway.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
>  or entity to whom they are addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Cecilia D. Ramirez
Program Liaison

World Affairs Council of Philadelphia

215.561.4700, ext. 216

Bodine High School for International Affairs

215.351.7057

---

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check out
new cars at Yahoo! Autos.