Re: SF logo + CC0 license (upcoming octave-gnerate-html package)
[I am adding the mailing list of the Debian Octave Group to the Cc list.]
* John Scott <jscott@posteo.net> [2025-11-30 21:51]:
I apologize that my tone may sound antagonistic; I'm struggling with my
words and want to give you a timely reply above all else.
No problem. I thank you for your prompt reply.
This link has a typo:
[1] https://gnu-octave.github.io/packages/generate-html/
It should read as https://gnu-octave.github.io/packages/generate_html/
Correct.
Anywho, that SourceForge logo is also a trademark. If use of the
SourceForge logo were necessary to convey something to a reader, then
that'd be one thing. However it doesn't appear Octave stuff even uses
SourceForge anymore, so to include the logo at all is potentially
misleading and doesn't serve a sensible purpose.
I take it that you were referring to
https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/generate_html/ci/default/tree/inst/of-website-files/footer.js
and a code comment there says:
// This function is in an extra file because it contains code specific to the hosting service.
but once this is inside a Debian package, as opposed to being a page
hosted by SourceForge, the purpose breaks down.
I must ask, is it necessary to ship the 'of-website-files' folder? From
skimming, it looks like that folder probably isn't relevant for
downstream users of octave-generate-html or any reverse dependencies it
may have. Instead, it appears that folder holds assets used to build
the former website at https://octave.sourceforge.io/ which now
proclaims that the Octave Forge isn't active anymore, and certainly not
on SourceForge. If that directory of the package is a time capsule of
information no longer true, it's hard for me to understand how it could
be of service to our users. How is this intended to be used? In their
code comment upstream demonstrated care in making it possible to remove
the SourceForge logo (by putting that code in a separate source file),
and our dilemma here seems exactly what that's intended to solve. In
other words, inclusion of the SourceForge logo seems unhelpful.
Yes, the generate_html package of Octave is intended for developers of
Octave packages, not end users. This package can be used to generate
web pages similar to this one: https://octave.sourceforge.io/arduino/index.html.
You are absolutely right in your analysis. The repository at
octave.sf.net is deprecated. However, the generate_html package contains
tools for doing other things. Just continue reading:
Are there planned reverse dependencies of this package? How is it
intended to be used? If the code to include the SourceForge logo were
left in, would users ever see it in their use?
I forgot to mention this in my original post. I plan to package
octave-generate-html because of its reverse dependency octave-quaternion
(upcoming version 2.4.1). The quaternion package uses generate_html in
order to produce its documentation in PDF form.
So, I think I have a plan: I will just remove the offending URL from
footer.js and add a note to the README.Debian file. This should not
affect the package's usability.
[I] added the following stanza in debian/copyright for [the fixed.js file]:
Files: inst/of-website-files/fixed.js
Copyright: 2009, Søren Hauberg <soren@hauberg.org>
License: CC0
This file licensed under the CC0 license (see <https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode>), effectively placing it in the public domain.
Is it correct?
That is not the license, but only a statement identifying the license. It is conceptually similar to the GNU GPL verbage you're more likely familiar with:
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Fortunately CC0-1.0 is shipped at /usr/share/common-licenses/CC0-1.0 so
after a paragraph break you can append a sentence along the lines of
"On Debian systems, the full text of the CC0 1.0 Universal license can
be found in "/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0"." version 2 can be
found in the file /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2.
Ok, thanks! I did not notice that CC0-1.0 was included in the base-files
package.
Best,
Rafael Laboissière
Reply to: