On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:47:10 +0100 Fabio Fantoni wrote: [...] > And would the copyright part I tried to do be correct? [...]
In addition to what Soren has already commented about trademark laws, I
would like to point out that stating "License: CC0-1.0" for that icon
does not look correct to me.
First of all, the [icon] on SVG repo states "LICENSE: PD License",
which is not exactly CC0-v1.0 ...
The [explanation] of "PD License" (a very misleading tag, by the
way...) on SVG repo says that the author has waived his/her rights
under copyright law to the extend allowed by law, or that the work is
not eligible ("ineligable" looks like a typo, I think the text meant
"eligible") for copyright.
[icon]: <https://www.svgrepo.com/svg/513083/windows-174>
[explanation]: <https://www.svgrepo.com/page/licensing/#PD>
Well, public domain is difficult and varies wildly across
jurisdictions, so beware!
Please also read [section] 7.1.1 "Public domain" of the
Machine-readable debian/copyright file specification (version 1.0):
please explain why that icon should be considered in the public domain.
[section]:
<https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name>
I hope this helps.
Season's greetings!
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpCHT1Zcs0gh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
