[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Logos in Dask documentation

Paul Wise writes ("Re: Logos in Dask documentation"):
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Diane Trout wrote:
> > Several logos are linked to in the Dask documentation, and
> > I was wondering how I should resolve them.
> Are they present in the source package or are you concerned about
> privacy violations from browsers downloading remote images when
> loading the local documentation?

It's not just privacy violations.  These kind of external references
in packaged documentation can make offline use of the documentation
very annoying.  Offline use is an important reason why someone would
install the -doc package rather than just go to the project website...

> > Here' is the list of logos and what I found for their terms of use.
> I wouldn't recommend it, but one other solution is to just ignore the
> logos and their licensing and keep them as-is. This is what Debian's
> firefox packages do for the search engine logos.

I don't see any problem with copying the logos into the source
(whether into the upstream source, or into the Debian package).

I know that some DFSG zealots will say that this is a DFSG violation
but I think it's de minimis, particularly because (i) obviously the
logo's owners are not going to mind since the whole purpose is to
credit them, so there is no risk of anyone being sued (ii) if the
logos ever give any legal or practical trouble in the future they can
be simply replaced by text at that point.  I think that providing a
nice credit to the sponsors is worth these tiny risks.

I appreciate that this kind of purposive approach to the
interpretation of the DFSG (or indeed any of Debian's documentation)
is an anathema to much of Debian's culture.  Many Debian members value
legalistic compliance with written documents, over promoting the
underlying purposes of those documents (and indeed over promoting our
other values and goals).

Ultimately the arbiter would be ftpmaster, who are rather inscrutable.
You could try it, and see what they think.  As a matter of integrity,
you should draw the matter to their attention (as well as that of
downstreams) by mentioning it in d/copyright.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: