- cross-posted to:
- rust
- cross-posted to:
- rust
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
From what I understand it is just a restriction on calling “Rust” something that is not officially Rust, I don’t think there is a problem for anyone who manages code written in Rust instead.
Also from what I know Free Software is about code, it doesn’t say anything about how to manage trademarks.
Yeah, Free Software licenses state that you have to be allowed to modify and redistribute the software. It does not state that you have to be allowed to call your fork the same as the original software.
And given that it is very much already good manners to not call your fork the same as the original, this trademark topic is only really relevant for distributions, when they want to apply custom patches (without renaming the software).
I’ve seen the link, read it, and think about it, here be my conclusion.
rust trademark
For non-commercial use, you can do it willynilly. For commercial use you must NOT appear as if your product came from the Rust organization (for example, if you’re making a commercial proprietary language based on rust) without explicit permission. I think that still doesn’t ruin the third right of distributing the modified copy of your own software. You just need to make sure that the one you’re distributing and have modified is in fact from your own making AND doesn’t have anything to do with the rust trademark without special permission. It’s about not confusing who is who, not about “DONT USE OUR TRADEMARK REEEE”.
The alternative to this is to not use the name of rust and cargo to use in your trademark (if it’s for commercial use), but you can still refer that your software is using both of those technology.
centralized ecosystem
this is old news and have been debunked already. You can use your own private crate, you can choose your own source for your packages, and you can ditch cargo entirely when you can’t fulfill your need via private crates and direct package-from-source solution.
I don’t think it has a place in a kernel in its current state.
Even your article states that there’s alternative to this problem, which is to rebrand something, that’s it. The article is about the flaws, but not about whether it’s possible or it have a place or not in the kernel. I think it does have a place, we just need to make sure that it doesn’t have a branding problem.
I’ve seen this issue be raised before and I do not think it’s comparable to the Firefox/Thunderbird trademark issue. The Rust trademark covers the Rust compiler and implementation, not all code written in Rust. The Rust trademark thus would not apply to Linux in any way.
Consider the case of Tauthon, a fork continuation of Python 2.7, originally named Python 2.8. The name “Python 2.8” implied this was an officially supported release of Python, and Guido van Rossum requested a name change.
deleted by creator