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.
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/ 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. 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] added the following stanza in debian/copyright for [the fixed.js file]: > Files: inst/of-website-files/fixed.js > Copyright: 2009, Søren Hauberg <[email protected]> > 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.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
