3 ms·
Not exactly: [0] > Some users have correctly mentioned that many other software packages have trademarks, do we plan to remove them all? No. We are not against
by cylon13 6y ago
Not exactly: [0]
> Some users have correctly mentioned that many other software packages have trademarks, do we plan to remove them all? No. We are not against all trademarks, only those which explicitly prohibit normal use, patching, and modification.
> As an example, neither Python PSF nor Perl Trademarks currently prohibit patching the code without prior approval. They do prohibit abuse of their trademarks, e.g. you cannot create a company called “Python”, but this does not affect your ability to modify their free software and/or apply patches.
> Due to the anti-modification clause, Rust is a non-permissive trademark that violates user freedom.
[0] https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedom_flaws https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedo...
- Macha 6y agoWell, good luck calling your modified Python release Python: https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon/issues/47 https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon/issues/47
- jcranmer 6y agoI suspect whomever wrote that hasn't actually read the trademark policies in detail, or conferred with lawyers about it. Neither Python's nor Perl's agreements explicitly cover the case in detail, but Perl does mention this: > Licensed redistributors of Perl code are permitted by their licenses to use the Perl logo in connection with their distribution services, on product packaging, and in promotional materials. IANAL, but that text would especially suggest to me that you would have no right to use the trademark even to distribute an unmodified binary of Perl without approval. I suspect the real reason is Debian and Mozilla had a very public, well-known spat over licensing, and Python and Perl have not had very public, well-known spats with anybody.