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

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?



On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 1:54:54 PM MST Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > Cloud you please clarify the licensing status of the icons (which is
> > separate
> > from any trademark issues)?
> 
> Thanks for the question. The answer is simply: it does not matter.
> 
> It does not matter for the project and its users as long as those
> images are used under "fair use" conditions.
> 
> It does not matter for Debian because it is always better keeping the
> "main" repository above of any doubts.

It matters for Debian in the sense that it alters how to package the program.  
What is important to understand in this context is that for packages in main, 
the tarball used to populate the source package cannot contain any files that 
are not licensed under DFSG-free licenses *even if those files do not end up in 
the binary packages*.  This is actually a scenario that we run into a lot when 
packaging software.  In that case, you will use the Files-Excluded 
functionality of uscan to repackage the upstream tarball to remove all the the 
files that are not DFSG-free.  When you do this, the Debian package name will 
contain ‘+dfsg’.  As an example, see:

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/electrum

So, this isn’t a blocker for Debian packaging, but it is necessary that you 
document (in debian/copyright) that every file that ends up in the tarballs 
that are archived on Debian servers in “main” as part of the source package 
have a DFSG-free license.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: