> This was not a "knee-jerk" reaction, nor was it an attempt to spread fear or cause panic. While the document the foundation drafted did lead to the fork, we believe it is an overdue solution to a problem that already existed, and addresses some issues that many community members have had for some time.
This is obviously very knee-jerk and will either die or end up creating the same bureaucracy that Rust has. People love to complain about bureaucracy without understanding it exists for many reasons. The Rust teams are far more equipped to handle the development of Rust than anyone entertaining this fork (unless, of course, a significant number of members of the Rust teams decide to move over).
> The Rust teams are far more equipped to handle the development of Rust than anyone entertaining this fork (unless, of course, a significant number of members of the Rust teams decide to move over).
As a form of protest against the silly Rust Foundation, a fork of the language which is simply a rebranded mirror of Rust sources would work.
The Rust trademark is proposal published literally to see what the community thinks. And the community thinks…it’s a bad idea.
So as long as the foundation changes their mind I really don’t think they‘ve done anything wrong, and anyone who’s said “the Rust foundation is trademarking the name ‘Rust’” or “the Rust foundation has trademarked the name ‘Rust’” overreacted.
If they listen to all this feedback and still move forward with the trademark, then they’re truly awful, since they, the leaders of this “community-driven organization”. just ignored 90% of the community. But that hasn’t happened yet, in fact all they’ve done is actively “seek community input” by publishing this draft.
> the Rust foundation has trademarked the name "Rust"
Just to clarify: Rust, Cargo and Clippy have already been registered as trademarks for some time now (AFAIK originally by Mozilla, with ownership transfered to the Rust Foundation upon its creation).
There is also an existing trademark policy, with the draft concerning an update to it.
+1. The reaction to the recent developments is in range of being a case of mass hysteria. Unbelievable levels of cringe and FUD being produced by a few prominent members of the community.
You are blaming the people who point out there is a problem, instead of the people causing the problem.
The proposed policy is terrible and based on the reaction of the people behind the proposal, they are fully determined to go through with it, which, to me, was very disheartening.
I see that a small part of the Rust community would love to blame it all on "Youtubers and streamers" without actually addressing any of their points.
The community, including many (not just a few) prominent members, gave detailed feedback on all the channels (see blogs, reddit, twitter and yt), and the only "rebuttal" of their points I hear is "stop the FUD", "you are not a lawyer so shut up", and "streamers drama".
So here comes the in-fighting. Looks like someone listened to the call to action to fork the language [0] and just did that to their 'beloved' language.
Again, the moment the Rust Foundation chose to be a 501(c)(6) it was all going to go downhill from there as I and others have warned about this [1] years before.
There is a good reason why other language foundations like Python Software Foundation, NumFocus (Julia lang), D Language Foundation, Zig Software Foundation, R Foundation, etc, are 501(c)(3).
I’m struggling to understand why the IRS nonprofit type is material here. Your previous post doesn’t really explain it either: a 501(c)(3) can impose trademark restrictions in the exact same way.
Not anybody. The claim was that there’s no difference between individual nonprofit types in terms of trademarking abilities: the Rust trademark policy could just as easily exist under a (c)(3).
(c)(3)s serve the public interest; (c)(6)s serve the interests of their members. But this doesn’t imply anything about a management class; it’s just a simpler and less fraught way to achieve tax-exempt status for a software community, especially one that was originally smaller.
* A community fork of a language named after a plant fungus. All of the memory-safe features you love, now with 100% less bureaucracy! *
I assumed with the 'oxide' and 'ferrous' references that Rust's etymology had to do with corrosion, and while that's part of the explanation, it's mostly about fungi [1]
I assumed it was a joke based on the phrase "close to the metal" (zero-cost abstractions allowing high-level features without sacrificing performance). Nothing is closer to metal than an oxidation layer.
Wow had no idea. My assumption was it was about building something so durable and stable that it’ll be around forever.
Which doesn’t make sense given oxidization slowly robs something of its durability. But Discord is named using a word that means “disagreement and lack of harmony” so I kind of look past weird branding in tech.
Fortunately I'm in it for the language and not the name - the fork likely just stands to prove a point and it'll probably end there. But if the governance turns out to be ridiculous the dominant fork will eventually change and most would follow that without hesitation I'd think.
Contributors won't want to work on the whatever the "inferior" version is.
IO forked for technical reasons because Joyent wouldn’t entertain improvements. This rust drama is because some programming Youtubers/streamers don’t understand copyright and fair use, and of course want to bait rage clicks.
That is one of my top worries. If the, taking Debian as an example, has a sufficient amount of patches for their rust package that have not been upstream or upstream won't accept, does Debian now need to offer Rust under a different name because the Rust Foundation may not allow them to use the "Rust" branding?
Part of the point is that if you read the Rust foundation's recent document strictly enough, anyone else aren't actually allowed to say the name Rust, since they didn't get explicit permission and/or aren't willing to comply with all of the terms.
So they don't dare say the name to avoid any chance of being sued.
Not that it's actually likely, but the point is that the document is that bad, so IF you take it at it's word, then well that's how it evaluates out, is the only way to be safe is just don't use the actual logo or name at all. Anything else you do technically runs afoul of at least one of the many terms and conditions in there.
You can always use the word Rust to refer to the actual Rust language or the Rust project. In a similar fashion the Python Software Foundation will sue you for trademark infringement if you create a general-purpose programming language distinct from Python and call it Python.
There is a new proposed trademark policy that bans the use of the "rust" trademark in domain names, package names and educational material (unless the educational material starts with a disclamer denouncing affiliation with the Rust (TM) Foundation https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12e7tdb/rust_trademar...)
Yes, in many programming language ecosystems (including Rust), it is very common to use the language of the programming name in project names, library names, domain names, meeting names etc.
Suddenly saying this is not okay unless you get explicit approval beforehand is very unusual for an "open" programming language.
There are a lot in the new trademark policy that discourage using the word Rust in any possible way that is not explicitly mentioned as permitted. But you are right, stating "written in Rust" is explicitly mentioned as permitted.
4.1.3 Statements about compatibility, interoperability or derivation
You may use the Word Marks, but not the Logos, to truthfully describe the relationship between your software and ours. Our Marks should be used after a verb or preposition that describes the relationship between your software and ours. So you may say, for example, "the Dungeness tool for the Rust compiler" but may not say "the Dungeness Rust compiler," which suggests that Dungeness is the source of the Rust compiler. Some other examples that may work for you are:
[Your software] is written in the Rust language
[Your software] can compile software written in Rust
[Your software] can be used in the Rust compiler toolchain
[Your software] is based on the official Rust compiler
"Trust" would sound nice, but it contains "rust" so it might have given an attack surface for a trademark infringement lawsuit by some un-t-rust-able foundation.
Am I the only one who feels like their stubborn insistence to not say which language they’re forking is just childish? What is this, Hogwarts?
I recognize that the whole argument is trademark law and controlling the name “Rust”, but someone having a trademark doesn’t mean that outsiders aren’t allowed to say or write the name.
Suggesting that this is the case, is exactly the kind of FUD they say they’re not after.
I did, and it says (in section 3.1): "The law [...] prohibits creating a 'likelihood of confusion' but allows for 'nominative use.' For example, you cannot say you are distributing the Rust compiler when what you are distributing differs from the version distributed by the Rust Project, because people would be confused [...] However, you can say you use and like the Rust software, that you participate in the Rust community, that you are providing an unmodified version of the Rust software, or that you wrote a manual describing how to develop software using Rust."
And in section 4.1.3: "You may use the Word Marks, but not the Logos, to truthfully describe the relationship between your software and ours. Our Marks should be used after a verb or preposition that describes the relationship between your software and ours. So you may say, for example, 'the Dungeness tool for the Rust compiler' but may not say 'the Dungeness Rust compiler,' which suggests that Dungeness is the source of the Rust compiler."
Yeah, that part is a little strange. They mention in section 4.1.4 that you must make clear that you're referring to the Rust language and not the Rust software, and they suggest doing that by saying "ABC compiler for Rust" instead. But that phrasing definitely doesn't make the intended distinction any clearer to my ears.
It also seems strange that they would allow a different compiler to use the trademark to refer to the language, as in "ABC compiler for Rust", without any requirement that the language implemented by the compiler is in fact the Rust™ language with "the same features and functionality", so that it doesn't create exactly the kind of confusion they're trying to avoid with this policy.
Edit: I'm not necessarily in favor of such conformance requirements. It's a tool that can be used both for good and for evil: Java used it to successfully defend against Microsoft but also to (in effect) prevent Adoptium from distributing OpenJ9.
Registered trademarks have to be defended, if you don't defend them they can be invalidated. Forking the language is certainly one kind of feedback. But I get the feeling that most people who have a problem with this new policy would rather that there was no policy at all, no enforcement. I don't think that's very realistic.
b) creating a chilling effect which robs the community of momentum on meetups, books, tutorials or even just really enthusiastic fan/technical channels like for example https://www.youtube.com/@NoBoilerplate
If I thought I needed to have a "use of marks" policy at all, I probably wouldn't choose to draft a policy that instead permits absolutely anyone to go around masquerading as The Rust Language, as, well, that would not accomplish any goal.
You don't write a policy like this in such a way that it permits people to use the mark for just anything. It needs to be restrictive, at least a little bit. If it's registered then it needs to be protected; if you allow the indiscriminate use, you lose the trademark (and then just anyone can call their copier a Xerox machine on the package. Now if you're Xerox Corporation you actually do have a problem.)
Then again, I am a Rubyist, so I just went and checked on what trademark policies the Ruby language has, and as it turns out (unless I missed something) there are none. There also isn't a Ruby foundation – there's Ruby Central, the non-profit responsible for organizing the conferences (those are RubyConf and RailsConf) but they don't exert controlling authority over any community outside of the cons. They don't own any trademarks as far as I can tell. Maybe don't need this at all.
There is a Rails Foundation. Another example, not a language but: DHH owns the "Rails" mark and the trademark policy is this extremely reasonable one-pager (that also provides some specific real-world examples of what types of abusive uses it is intended to prevent. It's clear enough to me why we can't have unauthorized "Ruby Rails" dolls for sale by just anyone.)
I don't know how similar Rust Foundation is to Rails Foundation, but if it is too similar then I think I may begin to understand why people do not like it so much. No offense to DHH.
It does feel kind of circular. "Why is there a trademark policy?" Because we have this trademark and we don't want to lose it. "Why do we have a trademark?" To be held in trust by the foundation. Why do we have a foundation? To protect the interests of the community.
Well, if the community seemingly hates this new policy so much, are we doing that?
---
There is a third option though, you didn't mention: the Rust Foundation could actually listen to the community's feedback and draft a new proposal. I'm sure they won't let their mark get invalidated. I'm less sure they will listen now. (People all seem to have made up their mind that no compromise is possible, from where I sit.)
But maybe Ruby as a counter-example is more helpful than I thought. What company or collective stewards Ruby on behalf of the Ruby community? There isn't one, at least not officially. I used to think of Heroku as the company. Matz, the language's creator was employed there as "Chief Architect of Ruby" – is he still associated with Heroku/SalesForce now?
I don't know. I tried to find out if that is still true, all I found was a Wiki article that says he works somewhere else today. It's unclear if he still retains the title and position at Heroku/SalesForce.
So maybe Ruby didn't need a foundation, or maybe it did. Look at Heroku now. If Ruby was counting on their support, I think we'd all be in some kind of trouble. Maybe we are in trouble. I don't know how you feel about Ruby, but I like it! And I don't feel in trouble, that's good for me, so maybe I see your point.
I hope that we get to have more cool events where practitioners can meet up and advance the state of the art for their favorite language. And I'm frankly not sure if any of this information makes me more or less interested in using Ruby or Rust today. I think I'm fairly indifferent about it all. I don't want to get sued, mainly.
So I guess I do at least understand "Why CrabLang" then.
That's the same as taking homeopathics, "just in case". In the end the only thing that does (apart from possible placebo effect) is signal to everyone that you don't have any understanding of the basics of natural sciences (or in this matter the basics of trademark law).
The point is, yes there is, and that it doesn't matter if the document would fail in a court challenge, it's still the document they wrote and the terms they obviously want and think are reasonable, and so it is only reasonable to assume they will try to defend them.
If you want to flout them and get them to sue you so that you can force it to be challenenged in court and hopefully you win and open the door for everyone else, I'm sure they would all appreciate it.
But even aside from whether it would hold up in court or not, it's already a problem that they even tried to claim such things. They should absolutely be criticized for that.
It is not only impeccably fair to criticize them for that document, but there is no more perfectly fair and unassailable way to do it than by simply taking it at it's word and adhering to what it says.
No matter how you try to slice it, it's just not even slightly unreasonable to simply do what the Rust Foundation commanded everyone to do.
Then why is the foundation adding language that signals their intention to sue people who use the trademark in domain names, learning material, packages and so on?
"Am I the only one..."
Yes. That is exactly the point, that even such obviously allowable uses of the name are actually not allowed. So they are merely adhering to the rules they didn't write or ask for.
If you think it's stupid, well, yes, so does everyone else. That's the wbole point. But it's not everyone else being stupid it's the Rust Foundation.
This is obviously very knee-jerk and will either die or end up creating the same bureaucracy that Rust has. People love to complain about bureaucracy without understanding it exists for many reasons. The Rust teams are far more equipped to handle the development of Rust than anyone entertaining this fork (unless, of course, a significant number of members of the Rust teams decide to move over).