On Tuesday, December 23, 2025 12:31:29 PM Mountain Standard Time Fabio Fantoni
wrote:
> Il 23/12/2025 19:38, Francesco Poli ha scritto:
>
> > 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!
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for your replies, I wrote CC0-1.0 because on
> https://www.svgrepo.com/page/licensing/#PD I found:
>
>
> > /(As visual work) This license also might be referred as No copyright
> > or CC0 1.0 Universal PD Dedication on our website./
>
>
> this can be correct?Wow! That is an interesting situation. I have never gone down this rabbit hole before. 1. There is a distinction between the something in the Public Domain and the CC0 license, particularly in certain jurisdictions around the world. One of the distinctions is that, in some parts of the world, you cannot “release” something into the Public Domain. Rather, it can only “age” into the Public Domain after a certain number of years. 2. The CC0 muddies this water, because on their website they state: "CC0 1.0 Universal" "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.” https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en It is true that the CC0 tries to mimic the same results of the Public Domain, using a license to do so instead of the actual Public Domain. 3. The svgrepo website specifically states that when icons are listed as “PD License” on their website, that means CC0. Note that “PD License” is not the same as “Public Domain”, particularly because Public Domains works are not licensed, and “PD License” is expressly a . . . license. https://www.svgrepo.com/page/licensing/#PD svgrepo is legally free to define “PD License” however they like. And they are clear that when they write it, they mean “CC0 License” (they even link to the CC0 in their explanation). So, based mostly on point 3, I think you are correct to list this as the CC0 in debian/copyright. I would recommend amending your comment in debian/ copyright to say that the upstream website names the license as “PD License”, but then defines it as being the same as the CC0 license, with a link to https://www.svgrepo.com/page/licensing/#PD. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
