3 ms·

Rust's Fail [video]

9 points by testrun 3y ago

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
So is the Rust Foundation trying to pivot to profit from license fees and merchandicing? I do not understand their motivations here. If these actions go forward, it could negatively impact Rust adoption and discourage the community. If the Rust Foundation goes forward and the community disagrees what should the response be?
- qwery 3y ago
  > So is the Rust Foundation trying to pivot to profit from license fees and merchandicing? No, this doesn't seem to be the case at all.
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    Then why the sudden change? The possibility of lawsuits and licensing fees for crates, projects, etc. that have been in use for years is a cause for concern. It goes against the spirit of good will that the Rust community is known for and has a 'bait and switch' feel to some people.
    - qwery 3y ago
      I don't think it is a sudden change. The Rust Foundation was established early 2021. One of the reasons for its creation is to hold/manage the trademarks/IP, in a similar arrangement to other substantial free software projects. Clarifying and rewriting the trademark policy has been one of the specific goals of the foundation for some time (if not the whole time). It wasn't a secret project. For example, in August 2022 they solicited feedback[0] from the community regarding the revision of the trademark policy. [0] https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/2022-08-09-trademark-policy-review-and-survey/ https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/2022-08-09-trademark-p...
qwery 3y ago
Actually, the foundation's motivations seem pretty straightforward and sensible. The issue seems to originate from the commonality/ambiguity between the Rust Foundation and the Rust programming language. The fact that you can release a library through the official repository with a name like 'rust-core' is bizarre. The foundation asking you to please not do that is entirely reasonable. Going forward, I'd suggest reserving crate names with a specific prefix (one that isn't already in common use) for official crates. If the foundation is using the same logo as the project, that's not ideal. Just design a separate logo for one or the other and license the one for the language freely.

9 points by testrun 3y ago

So is the Rust Foundation trying to pivot to profit from license fees and merchandicing? I do not understand their motivations here. If these actions go forward, it could negatively impact Rust adoption and discourage the community. If the Rust Foundation goes forward and the community disagrees what should the response be?

qwery 3y ago
> So is the Rust Foundation trying to pivot to profit from license fees and merchandicing? No, this doesn't seem to be the case at all.
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  Then why the sudden change? The possibility of lawsuits and licensing fees for crates, projects, etc. that have been in use for years is a cause for concern. It goes against the spirit of good will that the Rust community is known for and has a 'bait and switch' feel to some people.
  - qwery 3y ago
    I don't think it is a sudden change. The Rust Foundation was established early 2021. One of the reasons for its creation is to hold/manage the trademarks/IP, in a similar arrangement to other substantial free software projects. Clarifying and rewriting the trademark policy has been one of the specific goals of the foundation for some time (if not the whole time). It wasn't a secret project. For example, in August 2022 they solicited feedback[0] from the community regarding the revision of the trademark policy. [0] https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/2022-08-09-trademark-policy-review-and-survey/ https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/2022-08-09-trademark-p...

qwery 3y ago

Actually, the foundation's motivations seem pretty straightforward and sensible. The issue seems to originate from the commonality/ambiguity between the Rust Foundation and the Rust programming language. The fact that you can release a library through the official repository with a name like 'rust-core' is bizarre. The foundation asking you to please not do that is entirely reasonable. Going forward, I'd suggest reserving crate names with a specific prefix (one that isn't already in common use) for official crates. If the foundation is using the same logo as the project, that's not ideal. Just design a separate logo for one or the other and license the one for the language freely.