6 ms·

Rust Foundation restricts usage of word “Rust” and logos

84 points by laplab 4y ago

rustdesk 4y ago
Do we need to change our name which contains "rust"?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
usrbinbash 4y ago
So, what do I answer someone who I try to recommend the language with a crab as a logo to for a project (like a PO, CTO, customer, student, colleague), who then points at that draft? Hmmm? Anyone? Because I sure as hell don't have a good answer.
cft 4y ago
Implies that project names like rust-bitcoin are not allowed, unless they are developed by Rust foundation. This is a very bad decision for Rust adoption, completely out of touch. Did they just retain a corporate lawyer?
- moogly 4y ago
  I don't really see how it's bad. Just use bitcoin-rs. That's clear that it's Rust-based, but doesn't look like an official, sanctioned project.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    [dead]
  - bruel 4y ago
    Yeah, right up to the point where they trademark "rs" since it's also widely associated with rust.
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      That's the thing, isn't it?. Even IF they don't go forward with this...who's going to guarantee to a developer/maintainer/company who want to build stuff in/with/for "The crab language" that this isn't going to happen again?
  - mr_00ff00 4y ago
    So why not choose a less common word like the prefix “official-“ Then only crates with that are sponsored, rather than taking the literal name of the language that people already use?
    - moogly 4y ago
      OK, I didn't read the whole draft, just the example used in cft's post, which didn't seem like a big deal. But the other stuff is beyond stupid.
64operator 4y ago
[dead]
iudqnolq 4y ago
The title is editorialized and wrong. > From today through April 16, we invite you to review the current draft of the updated Rust Trademark Policy and share any feedback you might have using this form.
- jeffmess 4y ago
  The title is editorialized but why on earth was this even drafted? It's completely absurd.
mr_00ff00 4y ago
The Rust Foundation really loves to have a power trip once in a while. The leadership really needs to be replaced, rust has to stop being the one modern language that has drama constantly.
jeremychone 4y ago
This is so counterproductive. I hope the Rust Foundation and the Rust Project change their minds and take a more reasonable route. Protecting against misrepresentation is completely understandable, but forbidding any common and reasonable use just because of it is so counterproductive.
JeroenKnoops1 4y ago
Checkout The Primeagen on this topic. The 2 hour twitch session was amazing. This is the TLDR; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutR_LNoZw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutR_LNoZw0
- jeremychone 4y ago
  Reached 8K+!
tihal 4y ago
I feel like a fool for learning - let alone advocating - Rust to this point. The "great resign" is merely one year ago and the foundation has learned nothing. It is reasonable for any organization to protect against misrepresentation, but this proposal is overshooting so far that I could not even take it serious at first. Some of my favorites: - They try to trademark the words "Rust" and "Cargo" which are common words in the English language - You can not use "rust" in your domain name(?!), course name, video name, whatever, unless approved by the foundation - Trying to impose a "Rust Foundation" approved CoC to all on- and off-line communities or events revolving around the language (the language, not foundation!) - All off-line events about Rust need to ban their participants from carrying firearms - Overrule any existing fair-use rights by prohibiting any modification (other than scaling) to the logo - You need to constantly state that you are not affiliated or endorsed by the Rust Foundation when talking about the language (e.g. you want to write a tutorial, book or even answer on Stack Overflow?) Needless to say that most, if not all, of those rules will be impossible to enforce. The foundation can try by spending all their funds and energy to fight lawsuits because some kid in India used "Rust" in their domain name or a bunch of rednecks hold a conference with guns in their pockets, but that time and energy could be better used elsewhere. This proposal shows perfectly everything that is wrong with Rust: The "Foundation" and language need to be separated completely. This board consists of some self-proclaimed experts with questionable backgrounds who are hindering adaption and alienate the community by living out yet another ideology-driven power trip. At this point it does not matter if the proposal gets passed, which I doubt, or undergoes a complete rewrite as the damage is already done and the foundation has shown their ugly face to the community. This is their third strike in a row and I doubt that the important steps towards industry adoption (like integration to the Linux kernel) will be unaffected - all thrown out of the window because someone on this board could not endure the idea of people hosting independent events about the language.
- fouc 4y ago
  Seems pretty evident to me that some people are trying to kill Rust using simple sabotage techniques.. The question is, why?
- IYasha 4y ago
  [flagged]
kotatsuyaki 4y ago
This draft has to be canceled. It forbids some established naming conventions and project logo branding. It also gives the Foundation the power and responsibility to approve or disapprove other communities’ logos based on the Foundation’s political beliefs, which is not what the Foundation should do. As an average enjoyer of the Rust language, I’m really concerned about the draft. I can almost foresee forks to be made just to circumvent these trademark issues, which would certainly hurt the community.
- mr_00ff00 4y ago
  Please someone fork the language so we can stop this annoying yearly issues
l1xiangyi 4y ago
[dead]
FragenAntworten 4y ago
Did anyone archive this draft? The Google Docs link now has a statement and says the form is closed.
rfl890 4y ago
I have a slight feeling this isn't really "Free as in Freedom" anymore, Rust.
unsungNovelty 4y ago
You need look at NOT the changes but the root cause of it to understand why this could be happening. Most of these wordings looks like a corporate stuff. And that is exactly what this looks like. Rust is a Non-profit 501(c)(*6*) foundation and *NOT* 501(c)(3) which is what you probably expect when you hear or say the word _non-profit_. A 501(c)(6) non-profit is to look after the common interests of the members involved. It is non-profit. But the money pooled in are for the interests of it's members. Meaning Rust Foundation's corporate members. I don't know the people who wrote it, but my guess is this is at least one of the reasons. I am honestly guessing some of the weird ones will be reverted and this is because of a misunderstanding because of the people involved (Probably some legal team?). Obviously, I could be wrong here. --- A non-profit 501(c)(3) organisation on the other hand is for public charity, public interest and things like that. They are more likely to be community oriented than a (c)(6). Python foundation and Zig foundation are non-profit 501(c)(3). In operating systems, Linux Foundation (which controls Node.js and other projects) is a 501(c)(6) as well. While FreeBSD is a non-profit 501(c)(3). Ideally we want projects which have a non-profit 501(c)(3) organisation to flourish cos they exists for the community first even if corporate companies are heavily involved. - 501(c)(6) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501(c)(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501(c)(6) - 501(c)(3) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization

84 points by laplab 4y ago

rustdesk 4y ago

Do we need to change our name which contains "rust"?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

usrbinbash 4y ago

So, what do I answer someone who I try to recommend the language with a crab as a logo to for a project (like a PO, CTO, customer, student, colleague), who then points at that draft? Hmmm? Anyone? Because I sure as hell don't have a good answer.

cft 4y ago

Implies that project names like rust-bitcoin are not allowed, unless they are developed by Rust foundation. This is a very bad decision for Rust adoption, completely out of touch. Did they just retain a corporate lawyer?

moogly 4y ago
I don't really see how it's bad. Just use bitcoin-rs. That's clear that it's Rust-based, but doesn't look like an official, sanctioned project.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  [dead]
- bruel 4y ago
  Yeah, right up to the point where they trademark "rs" since it's also widely associated with rust.
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    That's the thing, isn't it?. Even IF they don't go forward with this...who's going to guarantee to a developer/maintainer/company who want to build stuff in/with/for "The crab language" that this isn't going to happen again?
- mr_00ff00 4y ago
  So why not choose a less common word like the prefix “official-“ Then only crates with that are sponsored, rather than taking the literal name of the language that people already use?
  - moogly 4y ago
    OK, I didn't read the whole draft, just the example used in cft's post, which didn't seem like a big deal. But the other stuff is beyond stupid.

64operator 4y ago

[dead]

iudqnolq 4y ago

The title is editorialized and wrong. > From today through April 16, we invite you to review the current draft of the updated Rust Trademark Policy and share any feedback you might have using this form.

jeffmess 4y ago
The title is editorialized but why on earth was this even drafted? It's completely absurd.

mr_00ff00 4y ago

The Rust Foundation really loves to have a power trip once in a while. The leadership really needs to be replaced, rust has to stop being the one modern language that has drama constantly.

jeremychone 4y ago

This is so counterproductive. I hope the Rust Foundation and the Rust Project change their minds and take a more reasonable route. Protecting against misrepresentation is completely understandable, but forbidding any common and reasonable use just because of it is so counterproductive.

JeroenKnoops1 4y ago

Checkout The Primeagen on this topic. The 2 hour twitch session was amazing. This is the TLDR; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutR_LNoZw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutR_LNoZw0

jeremychone 4y ago
Reached 8K+!

tihal 4y ago

I feel like a fool for learning - let alone advocating - Rust to this point. The "great resign" is merely one year ago and the foundation has learned nothing. It is reasonable for any organization to protect against misrepresentation, but this proposal is overshooting so far that I could not even take it serious at first. Some of my favorites: - They try to trademark the words "Rust" and "Cargo" which are common words in the English language - You can not use "rust" in your domain name(?!), course name, video name, whatever, unless approved by the foundation - Trying to impose a "Rust Foundation" approved CoC to all on- and off-line communities or events revolving around the language (the language, not foundation!) - All off-line events about Rust need to ban their participants from carrying firearms - Overrule any existing fair-use rights by prohibiting any modification (other than scaling) to the logo - You need to constantly state that you are not affiliated or endorsed by the Rust Foundation when talking about the language (e.g. you want to write a tutorial, book or even answer on Stack Overflow?) Needless to say that most, if not all, of those rules will be impossible to enforce. The foundation can try by spending all their funds and energy to fight lawsuits because some kid in India used "Rust" in their domain name or a bunch of rednecks hold a conference with guns in their pockets, but that time and energy could be better used elsewhere. This proposal shows perfectly everything that is wrong with Rust: The "Foundation" and language need to be separated completely. This board consists of some self-proclaimed experts with questionable backgrounds who are hindering adaption and alienate the community by living out yet another ideology-driven power trip. At this point it does not matter if the proposal gets passed, which I doubt, or undergoes a complete rewrite as the damage is already done and the foundation has shown their ugly face to the community. This is their third strike in a row and I doubt that the important steps towards industry adoption (like integration to the Linux kernel) will be unaffected - all thrown out of the window because someone on this board could not endure the idea of people hosting independent events about the language.

fouc 4y ago
Seems pretty evident to me that some people are trying to kill Rust using simple sabotage techniques.. The question is, why?
IYasha 4y ago
[flagged]

kotatsuyaki 4y ago

This draft has to be canceled. It forbids some established naming conventions and project logo branding. It also gives the Foundation the power and responsibility to approve or disapprove other communities’ logos based on the Foundation’s political beliefs, which is not what the Foundation should do. As an average enjoyer of the Rust language, I’m really concerned about the draft. I can almost foresee forks to be made just to circumvent these trademark issues, which would certainly hurt the community.

mr_00ff00 4y ago
Please someone fork the language so we can stop this annoying yearly issues

l1xiangyi 4y ago

[dead]

FragenAntworten 4y ago

Did anyone archive this draft? The Google Docs link now has a statement and says the form is closed.

rfl890 4y ago

I have a slight feeling this isn't really "Free as in Freedom" anymore, Rust.

unsungNovelty 4y ago

You need look at NOT the changes but the root cause of it to understand why this could be happening. Most of these wordings looks like a corporate stuff. And that is exactly what this looks like. Rust is a Non-profit 501(c)(*6*) foundation and *NOT* 501(c)(3) which is what you probably expect when you hear or say the word _non-profit_. A 501(c)(6) non-profit is to look after the common interests of the members involved. It is non-profit. But the money pooled in are for the interests of it's members. Meaning Rust Foundation's corporate members. I don't know the people who wrote it, but my guess is this is at least one of the reasons. I am honestly guessing some of the weird ones will be reverted and this is because of a misunderstanding because of the people involved (Probably some legal team?). Obviously, I could be wrong here. --- A non-profit 501(c)(3) organisation on the other hand is for public charity, public interest and things like that. They are more likely to be community oriented than a (c)(6). Python foundation and Zig foundation are non-profit 501(c)(3). In operating systems, Linux Foundation (which controls Node.js and other projects) is a 501(c)(6) as well. While FreeBSD is a non-profit 501(c)(3). Ideally we want projects which have a non-profit 501(c)(3) organisation to flourish cos they exists for the community first even if corporate companies are heavily involved. - 501(c)(6) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501(c)(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501(c)(6) - 501(c)(3) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization