2 ms·
Possibly calling both the compiler implementation and the language Rust is the issue here.
by leni536 7y ago
Possibly calling both the compiler implementation and the language Rust is the issue here.
- Macha 7y agoThe compiler implementation is rustc. There's a reasonably complete alternative (it compiles most code but doesn't enforce borrow checker rules so is more permissive than rustc) called mrustc.
- dagmx 7y agoThe project and language are called Rust. The compiler is rustc. You could make an alternative compiler under a different name than rust or rustc with this trademark restriction. Cpython and Python are similar here.
- Aaargh20318 7y ago> You could make an alternative compiler under a different name than rust or rustc with this trademark restriction But would you be allowed to call it a Rust compiler, even if it compiled a slightly modified version of the Rust language ? There are many C/C++ compilers, often they have some compiler-specific extensions, but they still call themselves C/C++ compilers. Would a similar situation be possible for Rust with the current license?
- leni536 7y agoWhy not? I think that wouldn't infringe trademark. IANAL
- dagmx 7y agoIANAL, but precedent says you can use "for Rust" in your description without issue. Though the Rust trademark could still be used to request a removal of association if you were doing something untoward in the eyes of the rust project. So it's not necessarily an unchecked freedom but it's also not limiting in most cases either.
- rumanator 7y ago> But would you be allowed to call it a Rust compiler, even if it compiled a slightly modified version of the Rust language ? AFAIK Rust is not specified by a fixed standard. Thus, it would be hard if not practically impossible to comply with a definition of what Rust is if none was ever done.