Package, Logo and Open Source

Paul Gaborit paul.gaborit at
Sat Apr 25 07:10:16 CEST 2020

Le 25/04/2020 à 00:23, Karl Berry a écrit :
> Nonfree logos need to be removed.  ("Nonfree" meaning, in short, "cannot
> be modified and modified versions redistributed".
> outlines the requirements.)
>      texmf-dist/tex/latex/nwejm/images/nwejm-smf-logo.pdf
> I'll await Denis's update.
>      texmf-dist/tex/latex/fithesis/logo/mu/fithesis-base-color.pdf
> I'll warn the authors before I remove that.
>      But for one of them (useful for the end users), I guess the author will
>      provide it with a free license. Nevertheless, I've no idea how/where this
>      author could officially declare the license attached to this logo...
> License statements about images can be made in an accompanying (or
> top-level) README, or anywhere sensible. In addition, it's good to also
> put license statements into the image itself, if the format allows for
> it. But since it's much more convenient for the people checking such
> things to look at small text files than decode binary formats, the
> README statement is more important. Thanks. -k

On WikiMedia 
(, I 
found this text attached to the last logo: "This logo image consists 
only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold 
of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the 
public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image 
may still be subject to other restrictions."

And later: "This work includes material that may be protected as a 
trademark in some jurisdictions. If you want to use it, you have to 
ensure that you have the legal right to do so and that you do not 
infringe any trademark rights."

The logo of my Institute is in the same situation...

Are you also going to remove the fontawesome package which contains many 
logos (Apple, Github, Amazon, Android ...)?

     Paul Gaborit

More information about the tex-live mailing list.