I wish people would stop treating Bryan Lunduke like he's still an authority. He's gotten so into being the "Linux Sucks" guy that he's slowly turned into a source for FUD in the FOSS community. For instance, he goes so far out of his way to mention that this is a draft for comment the word doesn't even appear in the article. Which is odd because he has plenty of words speculating about a license fee that isn't mentioned.
“We will consider requests to use the
[word “Rust” within a conference] on a
case by case basis, but at a minimum,
would expect events and conferences
using the [word “Rust”] to be
non-profit-making, focused on discussion
of, and education on, Rust software,
prohibit the carrying of firearms,
comply with local health regulations,
and have a robust Code of Conduct.”
Can someone with more context explain why it looks like the Rust Foundation is shooting themselves in the foot? Is there an angle to this that I am missing?
If you ask lawyers to give you the most permissive trademark policy that's still enforceable, this is what you get. Unfortunately what lawyers consider to be extremely permissive, hackers see as fatally authoritarian. It's not clear whether there's any room for compromise.
This isn't "The Rust Foundation went and Did It". AFAIK it's more like "The Project has wanted to change the trademark policy for a while (My understanding is "It's currently completely legally ambiguous despite seemingly being permissive, so it's A Problem"), and one of the explicit reasons the Rust Foundation was created was to deal with the Trademark Problem. The Project (Or at least, project leadership) were very involved in drafting the current draft policy". If project members are finding issues with the policy (And not just bugs/gotchas like "We didn't realize this would ban X crates, we're gonna fix that ASAP", but with some of the explicit goals of the Policy like what it says of commercial activities in general), then that's just showing how the current structure of The Rust Project is far from ideal. And that's generally widely known.
https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ has similar language (but with defined parameters) . I just read the linked (rust tm) doc. It is still in the draft phase and there are links for community comment and feedback.
In other words (at this stage) it doesn't look like they're trying to encumber the general use of the word _rust_ or the act of referring to the language by its given name.
> [S]tating accurately that software is written in the Python programming language, that it is compatible with the Python programming language, or that it contains the Python programming language, is always allowed. In those cases, you may use the word "Python" or the unaltered logos to indicate this, without our prior approval. This is true both for non-commercial and commercial uses.... This clause overrides other clauses of this policy.
I don't think they're that similar. Python is fairly permissive about use of its trademark in a way that won't cause dilution.
In addition to the fact that Python is less strident about use of the term "Python," Python is also explicitly a "Benevolent Dictator For Life" language. Rust, on the other hand, seems to try to position itself as entirely open, despite all of the heavy-handed restrictive steps it takes.
Nah. Python quit the BDFL scene when Guido stepped down. My point was simply that there are general commonalities between the two and that the linked rust document is in the early draft phase.
Hey, they might fuck it up, but as of today, they have not.
I'm assuming that this is actually satire, if a bit long-winded. I had a good laugh, anyhow.
Example: 'That’s right. Want to sell stickers with “Rust” on it? T-Shirts? Posters? No sir.'
Realistically, if you depict an old railway spike, nobody will come after you. But if you are profiting off someone else's reputation (via logos, etc), that's a problem; I don't see why that shouldn't be restricted.
I expect that a lot of the motivation for this is to have the ability to close down various kinds of bad actors (not just ankle-biter freeloading with amusement park midway merch). Rust is now big enough and important enough that I see this as a valid concern.
Rust? as in the same Rust, that all the Rust-aceans use?
Rust seems like it has a lot of Rust fans, that enjoy using Rust, and espousing the value of Rust for programming.
its an absolutely asinine comment, to go with an asinine circumstance.
so i take it you get the feeling that policies, and even anecdotes like OP create. +1 for the reply
