12 ms·

Why the Rust Trademark Policy was such a problem

galkk 4y ago
Many of things there were reading either as distractions from something larger or looked like extreme power tripping. Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences or you’re having copyright infringement or no rust in package name
- lol768 4y ago
  > Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences What's supposed to be wrong with this? I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited. I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - Macha 4y ago
      The only unique part of this is that it's in the trademark policy itself rather than in a supplemental events policy when you ask to be authorized to use the trademark for your event.
    - krapp 4y ago
      Carrying firearms around is a non-issue in most of the world because in most of the world, civilian possession and use of firearms is strictly regulated if not outright banned. Obviously this is not the case in the US.
      - 0zemp1c 4y ago
        right, and all of these laws are also not subject to the approval or disapproval of the Rust Foundation
    - capableweb 4y ago
      > Carrying firearms around is already a non-issue in most of the world, so it's pretty weird to focus so much on it. Not sure which places in the world you are referring to, but it's illegal in most places, and where it's not illegal, it's generally frowned upon to be carrying guns, unless you're actively visiting areas where it's advisable to carry a gun, but those are not places you stay for long in, certainly not to live there long-term, more like areas you have to pass through.
      - jki275 4y ago
        That's not the case in the majority of the United States, though it mostly is elsewhere.
        capableweb 4y ago
        "most of the world != majority of the United States" though.
        jki275 4y ago
        Agreed, I wasn't arguing that point.
      - vpastore 4y ago
        For Americans the world is America an nothing else
  - gavinhoward 4y ago
    Trademark and copyright law only goes so far, though. This is stretching both. That's what's wrong. By the way, in some states, it's legal to carry even where private actors forbid it, so you could attend a conference where they are "forbidden", and there could be people legally carrying anyway. People will never know.
  - 0zemp1c 4y ago
    > I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited. in most states, the decision to permit firearms on-site is made by the facility owner and must have legal posted signs so if a hotel in Texas doesn't have legal signage disallowing carrying on-site (no signs means you can carry), you can't just impose those rules for your own function (the correct course of action would be to hold your conference at a facility that operates policies you agree with)
  - fyzix 4y ago
    So you want everyone to be defenseless in the even that a criminal decides to ignore your rules?
  - chungy 4y ago
    What's wrong with it is that it's nothing the Rust Foundation should ever be concerned with. I sure as hell wouldn't want to attend conferences where firearms are forbidden. I don't want to be an easy target.
    - krapp 4y ago
      An easy target for whom? If you show up to a conference armed because you're paranoid about being a "target," you are a bigger danger than whatever hypothetical threat you feel you need a loaded gun on hand at all times for.
      - chungy 4y ago
        An easy target for whomever decides to start shooting. Murderers don't obey rules, that's part of being a murderer. The idea that carrying a firearm is inherently dangerous is absurd.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Vecr 4y ago
        Why do you think that? For best results you would want at least two people who don't know each other, but are both well trained, carrying. Reduces the chance that something could happen unopposed.
      - tourmalinetaco 4y ago
        > you are a bigger danger Yes, the legally carrying gun owner with said gun stowed away is scarier than some madman with a gun and the intent to kill you. How could I forget?
  - thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
    >>>> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences >> What's supposed to be wrong with this? It is over-reach. What if the policy stated that all conference participants could only eat vegan foods? Or that the conference had to have all energy use with 100% green energy sources? Or that all conference materials had to use the English language? Or that the conference proceedings must pause for the call to prayer? >> I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements. Good luck getting everyone around the world to agree what the 'basic requirements' should be. Why not leave those details to the conference organizers?
rvz 4y ago
So we have given it enough time [0] to see where the Rust Foundation is going and it turns out that I was wrong. It doesn't look good so far and there is a reason why I said the trademarks part was 'Very important'. The foundation is slowly consuming itself into a Linux Foundation like corporate organization that is in the interests of Big Tech companies and not the community. I had these suspicions before [1] about the way it was organized, but ignored it. Now this draconian trademark policy is strike 3 and is already putting off those supporting the organization. Before that, it was them setting up as a 501(c)6 like the Linux Foundation and afterwards then have board seats for sale for Big Tech companies as many have pointed out [2]. It just seems that this 'foundation' has become another scam. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24199702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24199702 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26091052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26091052 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316
- intsunny 4y ago
  > The foundation is slowly consuming itself into a Linux Foundation like corporate organization that is in the interests of Big Tech companies and not the community. I'm amazed at how soured the Linux Foundation has become in the eyes of the Linux and open source community. Seven years ago the Linux Foundation removed the non-paid community members from the board, and we all knew the writing was on the wall.
  - LukeShu 4y ago
    Their hostility toward the GPL is, in my mind, the proof that the souring was justified. I'm not sure if this hostility is general to the LF as a whole, or just in the CNCF, but: the CNCF has a policy about what acceptable licenses are for dependencies of CNCF projects, there's a list of approved licenses, and if you want to add a dependency on a library with a different license, you have to apply to the CNCF board for an exception to use that library. The GPL is not on that list, and there's a note that the board has never approved an exception to allow a library with a GPL-family license. The fact that a large sub-org in the Linux Foundation is allowed to ban the GPL is a disgrace.
  - 4y ago
infamouscow 4y ago
Very insightful. I think the trademark policy is further complicated by the fact Rust™ (is that how we're supposed to do it?) only has one functionally complete implementation. This is another disaster in the making, and the community is collectively putting their head in the sand. [1][2] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31779218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31779218 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31435473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31435473
- shakow 4y ago
  > This is another disaster in the making Frankly, I don't buy this. Many languages have a single functionally complete implementation (PHP, Perl, Nim, C#, Ocaml, Haskell, Julia) – or virtually a single one (Ruby, Go, Python) and that never proved to be a major problem to any of them.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Many languages have a single functionally complete implementation (PHP, Perl, Nim, C#, Ocaml, Haskell, Julia) – or virtually a single one (Ruby, Go, Python) and that never proved to be a major problem to any of them. For Ruby, which one are you referring to? CRuby, JRuby, or TruffleRuby?
- slondr 4y ago
  My understanding is that the rust front-end for gcc is nearing functional completeness
sendfoods 4y ago
Please excuse the unrelated question...I have seen this theme multiple times in the last couple of months, and believe it is open source. Does anyone if this is the case, and where to find it? Couldn't find a mention on the site itself
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  zerm[0] theme which I think is a copy of a Hugo theme. [0]: https://www.getzola.org/themes/zerm/ https://www.getzola.org/themes/zerm/
  - codetrotter 4y ago
    https://github.com/kimono-koans/kimono-koans.github.io https://github.com/kimono-koans/kimono-koans.github.io And in particular it is using the pink colors.
- kps 4y ago
  Please excuse the unrelated gripe, but please don't until it supports prefers-color-scheme.
  - sendfoods 4y ago
    what are you talking about exactly?
    - kps 4y ago
      https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/prefers-color-scheme https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref... Light-on-dark is difficult to read for some people with astigmatism.
0zemp1c 4y ago
feels like an HOA...people who have never had any real power in their lives (but feel they really should), so they go completely overboard and impose ridiculously arbitrary impositions when given any small amount of oversight btw, if there is a Rust conference in certain states and you don't have the proper legal signage posted wrt firearms (and I mean the hosting facility, not the conference itself), people will carry and you can't stop them
- JeremyBanks 4y ago
  [dead]
- capableweb 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - 0zemp1c 4y ago
    > Sounds almost like a threat of violence, so I'm not sure you want to leave this up here... please control yourself all I am saying is that the decision to permit carrying of weapons has state-by-state guidelines and you simply can't override these by virtue of renting a room the relevance was the insistence of the Rust Foundation wrongly believing it had the power to impose in this realm of law
  - yoyohello13 4y ago
    > How is this relevant to the discussion about Rust trademarks though? The request for comment had some specific verbiage about not promoting gun violence or something to that effect. OP was probably pointing out that you may have people carrying at a Rust conference (for unrelated reasons) which would be a breach.
  - JonChesterfield 4y ago
    It's useful info. I didn't realise people can carry firearms around tech conferences. Presumably so they can shoot at people if circumstances warrant it. That's worth taking into consideration when deciding whether to go to one.
gavinhoward 4y ago
As a business owner, the Rust Trademark Policy is a bigger problem than this post says. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using any Rust in my business's software if this goes through. I mean, when they go so far as to say that the GCC frontend is not a Rust compiler, but "GCC compiler for Rust," and you can't even give stuff away for free, it becomes a minefield for any company. More ranty details about my misgivings are at [1]. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2023/04/rust-is-dead-to-me/ https://gavinhoward.com/2023/04/rust-is-dead-to-me/
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > I have a concealed carry permit. I have firearms and other weapons. I know how to use them, and I will use them in defense of my wife and myself. And you can bet I carry them into places I consider dangerous if it is legal to... So yeah, if this policy goes through, I’m not welcome at Rust events, even if the event organizers agree with me. The policy is about fire arms, not you. Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal? Just leave your gun at home, you'll be fine. You are welcome to attend. Your gun isn't. If you think that the Rust conference is a dangerous place where you will need your gun, I suggest you stay home. I can assure you the conferences are perfectly safe, no one has needed to defend their family at one before. Your wife will be safe as well if you don't bring your gun to the Rust conference. -- As for the rest of your post, I would say I don't see the big deal. It seems like everything you listed would only be a problem if you're trying to start a business around Rust, using the Rust logo and name, or just generally piggybacking on Rust for profit. If that's what you wanted to do, I can see how the policy would be an affront. But as far as someone who wants to just write programs and not build a business around Rust, what is the downside here? I appreciate that the "rust" namespace will not be polluted by unofficial crates. I appreciate they are defending their trademark. Just the direction you don't like? If that's the case, personally I'm fine with it and encourage it. As an avid Rust user, I'll be happy to continue using the language and ecosystem; the software I write with it is very robust and efficient, so I'm happy to. If you don't want to, that's fine too. We'll have our gun-free conferences, you'll be invited, and you're free not to attend if you won't do so without your gun. But if you want to leave it behind we're happy to have you.
JonChesterfield 4y ago
Anyone have a link to whatever this post is talking about? I can't find one in the article and don't pay enough attention to rust to already know the context Might be this https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1ErZlwz9bbSI43dNo-rgQdkovm2h5ycuW220mWSOAuok/mobilebasic https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1ErZlwz9bbSI43dNo-rgQ...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 4y ago
  I think these are related - there may be others: The Rust Foundation goes to war against people using the word “Rust” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35547358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35547358 - April 2023 (22 comments) Rust Is Dead to Me - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35535285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35535285 - April 2023 (83 comments) Ask HN: How bad is the current draft trademark policy of the Rust Foundation? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35526453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35526453 - April 2023 (10 comments) Rust Foundation restricts usage of word “Rust” and logos - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35510987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35510987 - April 2023 (21 comments)
  - steveklabnik 4y ago
    They all are. I don’t think there’s been any more off the top of my head.
JonChesterfield 4y ago
After reading for a bit I'm totally lost. I'm what sense does this "foundation" own the programming language rust and/or wield control over it? Specifically if the toolchain developers and users sent the foundation email to spam and moved on with their lives as if this group didn't exist, does anything change? Found this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35582766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35582766 which helped a little
- mcspiff 4y ago
  Yes. They own much of the infrastructure used by the project, and fund some of the people managing said infrastructure. In addition to the trademark.
- steveklabnik 4y ago
  The Rust Foundation was created for a few reasons, but among them was to accept control of the trademarks from Mozilla. “The Rust Project” is not a legal entity, and that causes a lot of issues. The Foundation is, and can accept and use resources on behalf of the project. Furthermore, the Project has significant representation on the Foundation board. The Foundation cannot just do whatever they want, against the project. This policy was written by several Project members, in conjunction with the Foundation legal. So…
preommr 4y ago
Edit: This whole thread went to hell. There's like 2-3 people that are really vested about this situation and have made posts, and articles elsewhere that make their viewpoints seem bigger. Also the biggest comment thread is about a gun rights tangent. GG. --------------------------------------- In some ways this is a good thing - organizations should take steps to develop better brand credibility. Sometimes I just want to know if something is an official package/event/documentation/account/etc. I want to be able to go to a blog post, see an image and know that's an official Rust affiliated account without having to memorize names or read about someone's profile history. The panic about people being afraid of being sued for just mentioning rust seems farfetched. The policy outlines some pretty liberal fair-use, and would probably only take legal action in extreme cases. Of course, I doubt this is going to go over well. I doubt people will take the time to understand how to use the trademarks correctly and it'll lead to a situation where nobody follows it so the whole excercise in credibility will be pointless.
- mjw1007 4y ago
  It seems unnecessarily heavy-handed to me. Back in the day the Ada people had a reputation for being very "controlling", but they didn't stop the Gnat people naming their company "Ada Core Technologies", and they didn't stop the adahome.com people using that domain name or writing "Ada Home: The Web Site for Ada" in big letters on top of their webpage. I don't think that caused any serious problems.
  - preommr 4y ago
    > I don't think that caused any serious problems. It's certainly a different approach - that's the big problem, people aren't used to this kind of approach. I just watched a video where someone, in response to the policy of not having 'rust' in a crate name, brought up how npm allows 'node', and golang allows 'go' in their package names. And those were mistakes, way more for npm, which they eventually kind of fixed with namespaces. And cargo is not getting namespaces, in fact the whole package system is pretty but that's a separate thing. My bet is that this whole is going to be a disaster, but maybe this is a baby step for more professionalism for future projects to learn from - even if it's about what not to do.
mjw1007 4y ago
I don't think the "this is power-tripping" model of what's going on is very likely. The "this is what you get if you ask lawyers for a trademark policy and don't pay enough attention to what you get back" model seems closer. This post by a former nodejs decision-maker provides some evidence for that: https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12lb0am/can_someone_explain_to_me_whats_happening_with/jg8f42o/ https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12lb0am/can_someone_e...
- labster 4y ago
  The article agrees, ending with: > I'm not saying heads should roll. I'm saying someone needs to take the wheel. If no one is at the wheel, Rust is unsafe at any speed.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  I can't imagine a competent lawyer putting wildly subjective and irrelevant and out of scope things into a document copyrighting a trademark. This is not lawyers this is Karens.
- tourmalinetaco 4y ago
  This is absolutely the product of a power-tripping political activist slamming in whatever comes to mind. Even the most worthless trademark lawyer would never add in unnecessary statements like banning guns at Rust-backed conferences.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
The problem of their intentions, and the character of the authors and approvers, is not at all solved by "they asked for comment and recieved comment" The problem is just what kinds of outlandish things they thought it was within their right to control. They still think that even after "recieving comment", and that is a problem.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
I have half a mind to start a framework and throw a conference all about using Rust to write the firmwares to intelligent extra-safe guns that refuse to fire without biometric and other extra super safety measures like distance from a registered bluetooth or wifi device, gps location, remote disable by police, etc. Surely the Rust Foundation doesn't insist that guns be hackable and error prone by being written in java or c or anything but the most reliable language available? (I don't own any guns, and if I did I would want it to be as dumb as a hammer not something controlled by software, so I'm neither gun-nut nor gun-control-nut, and this post is only serious about the point not the hypothetical used to illustrate the point.)

Many of things there were reading either as distractions from something larger or looked like extreme power tripping. Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences or you’re having copyright infringement or no rust in package name

lol768 4y ago
> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences What's supposed to be wrong with this? I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited. I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Hamuko 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Macha 4y ago
    The only unique part of this is that it's in the trademark policy itself rather than in a supplemental events policy when you ask to be authorized to use the trademark for your event.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Carrying firearms around is a non-issue in most of the world because in most of the world, civilian possession and use of firearms is strictly regulated if not outright banned. Obviously this is not the case in the US.
    - 0zemp1c 4y ago
      right, and all of these laws are also not subject to the approval or disapproval of the Rust Foundation
  - capableweb 4y ago
    > Carrying firearms around is already a non-issue in most of the world, so it's pretty weird to focus so much on it. Not sure which places in the world you are referring to, but it's illegal in most places, and where it's not illegal, it's generally frowned upon to be carrying guns, unless you're actively visiting areas where it's advisable to carry a gun, but those are not places you stay for long in, certainly not to live there long-term, more like areas you have to pass through.
    - jki275 4y ago
      That's not the case in the majority of the United States, though it mostly is elsewhere.
      - capableweb 4y ago
        "most of the world != majority of the United States" though.
        jki275 4y ago
        Agreed, I wasn't arguing that point.
    - vpastore 4y ago
      For Americans the world is America an nothing else
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  Trademark and copyright law only goes so far, though. This is stretching both. That's what's wrong. By the way, in some states, it's legal to carry even where private actors forbid it, so you could attend a conference where they are "forbidden", and there could be people legally carrying anyway. People will never know.
- 0zemp1c 4y ago
  > I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited. in most states, the decision to permit firearms on-site is made by the facility owner and must have legal posted signs so if a hotel in Texas doesn't have legal signage disallowing carrying on-site (no signs means you can carry), you can't just impose those rules for your own function (the correct course of action would be to hold your conference at a facility that operates policies you agree with)
- fyzix 4y ago
  So you want everyone to be defenseless in the even that a criminal decides to ignore your rules?
- chungy 4y ago
  What's wrong with it is that it's nothing the Rust Foundation should ever be concerned with. I sure as hell wouldn't want to attend conferences where firearms are forbidden. I don't want to be an easy target.
  - krapp 4y ago
    An easy target for whom? If you show up to a conference armed because you're paranoid about being a "target," you are a bigger danger than whatever hypothetical threat you feel you need a loaded gun on hand at all times for.
    - chungy 4y ago
      An easy target for whomever decides to start shooting. Murderers don't obey rules, that's part of being a murderer. The idea that carrying a firearm is inherently dangerous is absurd.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Vecr 4y ago
      Why do you think that? For best results you would want at least two people who don't know each other, but are both well trained, carrying. Reduces the chance that something could happen unopposed.
    - tourmalinetaco 4y ago
      > you are a bigger danger Yes, the legally carrying gun owner with said gun stowed away is scarier than some madman with a gun and the intent to kill you. How could I forget?
- thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
  >>>> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences >> What's supposed to be wrong with this? It is over-reach. What if the policy stated that all conference participants could only eat vegan foods? Or that the conference had to have all energy use with 100% green energy sources? Or that all conference materials had to use the English language? Or that the conference proceedings must pause for the call to prayer? >> I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements. Good luck getting everyone around the world to agree what the 'basic requirements' should be. Why not leave those details to the conference organizers?

rvz 4y ago

So we have given it enough time [0] to see where the Rust Foundation is going and it turns out that I was wrong. It doesn't look good so far and there is a reason why I said the trademarks part was 'Very important'. The foundation is slowly consuming itself into a Linux Foundation like corporate organization that is in the interests of Big Tech companies and not the community. I had these suspicions before [1] about the way it was organized, but ignored it. Now this draconian trademark policy is strike 3 and is already putting off those supporting the organization. Before that, it was them setting up as a 501(c)6 like the Linux Foundation and afterwards then have board seats for sale for Big Tech companies as many have pointed out [2]. It just seems that this 'foundation' has become another scam. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24199702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24199702 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26091052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26091052 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316

intsunny 4y ago
> The foundation is slowly consuming itself into a Linux Foundation like corporate organization that is in the interests of Big Tech companies and not the community. I'm amazed at how soured the Linux Foundation has become in the eyes of the Linux and open source community. Seven years ago the Linux Foundation removed the non-paid community members from the board, and we all knew the writing was on the wall.
- LukeShu 4y ago
  Their hostility toward the GPL is, in my mind, the proof that the souring was justified. I'm not sure if this hostility is general to the LF as a whole, or just in the CNCF, but: the CNCF has a policy about what acceptable licenses are for dependencies of CNCF projects, there's a list of approved licenses, and if you want to add a dependency on a library with a different license, you have to apply to the CNCF board for an exception to use that library. The GPL is not on that list, and there's a note that the board has never approved an exception to allow a library with a GPL-family license. The fact that a large sub-org in the Linux Foundation is allowed to ban the GPL is a disgrace.
- 4y ago

infamouscow 4y ago

Very insightful. I think the trademark policy is further complicated by the fact Rust™ (is that how we're supposed to do it?) only has one functionally complete implementation. This is another disaster in the making, and the community is collectively putting their head in the sand. [1][2] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31779218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31779218 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31435473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31435473

shakow 4y ago
> This is another disaster in the making Frankly, I don't buy this. Many languages have a single functionally complete implementation (PHP, Perl, Nim, C#, Ocaml, Haskell, Julia) – or virtually a single one (Ruby, Go, Python) and that never proved to be a major problem to any of them.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Many languages have a single functionally complete implementation (PHP, Perl, Nim, C#, Ocaml, Haskell, Julia) – or virtually a single one (Ruby, Go, Python) and that never proved to be a major problem to any of them. For Ruby, which one are you referring to? CRuby, JRuby, or TruffleRuby?
slondr 4y ago
My understanding is that the rust front-end for gcc is nearing functional completeness

sendfoods 4y ago

Please excuse the unrelated question...I have seen this theme multiple times in the last couple of months, and believe it is open source. Does anyone if this is the case, and where to find it? Couldn't find a mention on the site itself

mustache_kimono 4y ago
zerm[0] theme which I think is a copy of a Hugo theme. [0]: https://www.getzola.org/themes/zerm/ https://www.getzola.org/themes/zerm/
- codetrotter 4y ago
  https://github.com/kimono-koans/kimono-koans.github.io https://github.com/kimono-koans/kimono-koans.github.io And in particular it is using the pink colors.
kps 4y ago
Please excuse the unrelated gripe, but please don't until it supports prefers-color-scheme.
- sendfoods 4y ago
  what are you talking about exactly?
  - kps 4y ago
    https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/prefers-color-scheme https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref... Light-on-dark is difficult to read for some people with astigmatism.

0zemp1c 4y ago

feels like an HOA...people who have never had any real power in their lives (but feel they really should), so they go completely overboard and impose ridiculously arbitrary impositions when given any small amount of oversight btw, if there is a Rust conference in certain states and you don't have the proper legal signage posted wrt firearms (and I mean the hosting facility, not the conference itself), people will carry and you can't stop them

JeremyBanks 4y ago
[dead]
capableweb 4y ago
[flagged]
- 0zemp1c 4y ago
  > Sounds almost like a threat of violence, so I'm not sure you want to leave this up here... please control yourself all I am saying is that the decision to permit carrying of weapons has state-by-state guidelines and you simply can't override these by virtue of renting a room the relevance was the insistence of the Rust Foundation wrongly believing it had the power to impose in this realm of law
- yoyohello13 4y ago
  > How is this relevant to the discussion about Rust trademarks though? The request for comment had some specific verbiage about not promoting gun violence or something to that effect. OP was probably pointing out that you may have people carrying at a Rust conference (for unrelated reasons) which would be a breach.
- JonChesterfield 4y ago
  It's useful info. I didn't realise people can carry firearms around tech conferences. Presumably so they can shoot at people if circumstances warrant it. That's worth taking into consideration when deciding whether to go to one.

gavinhoward 4y ago

As a business owner, the Rust Trademark Policy is a bigger problem than this post says. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using any Rust in my business's software if this goes through. I mean, when they go so far as to say that the GCC frontend is not a Rust compiler, but "GCC compiler for Rust," and you can't even give stuff away for free, it becomes a minefield for any company. More ranty details about my misgivings are at [1]. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2023/04/rust-is-dead-to-me/ https://gavinhoward.com/2023/04/rust-is-dead-to-me/

ModernMech 4y ago
> I have a concealed carry permit. I have firearms and other weapons. I know how to use them, and I will use them in defense of my wife and myself. And you can bet I carry them into places I consider dangerous if it is legal to... So yeah, if this policy goes through, I’m not welcome at Rust events, even if the event organizers agree with me. The policy is about fire arms, not you. Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal? Just leave your gun at home, you'll be fine. You are welcome to attend. Your gun isn't. If you think that the Rust conference is a dangerous place where you will need your gun, I suggest you stay home. I can assure you the conferences are perfectly safe, no one has needed to defend their family at one before. Your wife will be safe as well if you don't bring your gun to the Rust conference. -- As for the rest of your post, I would say I don't see the big deal. It seems like everything you listed would only be a problem if you're trying to start a business around Rust, using the Rust logo and name, or just generally piggybacking on Rust for profit. If that's what you wanted to do, I can see how the policy would be an affront. But as far as someone who wants to just write programs and not build a business around Rust, what is the downside here? I appreciate that the "rust" namespace will not be polluted by unofficial crates. I appreciate they are defending their trademark. Just the direction you don't like? If that's the case, personally I'm fine with it and encourage it. As an avid Rust user, I'll be happy to continue using the language and ecosystem; the software I write with it is very robust and efficient, so I'm happy to. If you don't want to, that's fine too. We'll have our gun-free conferences, you'll be invited, and you're free not to attend if you won't do so without your gun. But if you want to leave it behind we're happy to have you.

JonChesterfield 4y ago

Anyone have a link to whatever this post is talking about? I can't find one in the article and don't pay enough attention to rust to already know the context Might be this https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1ErZlwz9bbSI43dNo-rgQdkovm2h5ycuW220mWSOAuok/mobilebasic https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1ErZlwz9bbSI43dNo-rgQ...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dang 4y ago
I think these are related - there may be others: The Rust Foundation goes to war against people using the word “Rust” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35547358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35547358 - April 2023 (22 comments) Rust Is Dead to Me - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35535285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35535285 - April 2023 (83 comments) Ask HN: How bad is the current draft trademark policy of the Rust Foundation? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35526453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35526453 - April 2023 (10 comments) Rust Foundation restricts usage of word “Rust” and logos - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35510987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35510987 - April 2023 (21 comments)
- steveklabnik 4y ago
  They all are. I don’t think there’s been any more off the top of my head.

JonChesterfield 4y ago

After reading for a bit I'm totally lost. I'm what sense does this "foundation" own the programming language rust and/or wield control over it? Specifically if the toolchain developers and users sent the foundation email to spam and moved on with their lives as if this group didn't exist, does anything change? Found this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35582766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35582766 which helped a little

mcspiff 4y ago
Yes. They own much of the infrastructure used by the project, and fund some of the people managing said infrastructure. In addition to the trademark.
steveklabnik 4y ago
The Rust Foundation was created for a few reasons, but among them was to accept control of the trademarks from Mozilla. “The Rust Project” is not a legal entity, and that causes a lot of issues. The Foundation is, and can accept and use resources on behalf of the project. Furthermore, the Project has significant representation on the Foundation board. The Foundation cannot just do whatever they want, against the project. This policy was written by several Project members, in conjunction with the Foundation legal. So…

preommr 4y ago

Edit: This whole thread went to hell. There's like 2-3 people that are really vested about this situation and have made posts, and articles elsewhere that make their viewpoints seem bigger. Also the biggest comment thread is about a gun rights tangent. GG. --------------------------------------- In some ways this is a good thing - organizations should take steps to develop better brand credibility. Sometimes I just want to know if something is an official package/event/documentation/account/etc. I want to be able to go to a blog post, see an image and know that's an official Rust affiliated account without having to memorize names or read about someone's profile history. The panic about people being afraid of being sued for just mentioning rust seems farfetched. The policy outlines some pretty liberal fair-use, and would probably only take legal action in extreme cases. Of course, I doubt this is going to go over well. I doubt people will take the time to understand how to use the trademarks correctly and it'll lead to a situation where nobody follows it so the whole excercise in credibility will be pointless.

mjw1007 4y ago
It seems unnecessarily heavy-handed to me. Back in the day the Ada people had a reputation for being very "controlling", but they didn't stop the Gnat people naming their company "Ada Core Technologies", and they didn't stop the adahome.com people using that domain name or writing "Ada Home: The Web Site for Ada" in big letters on top of their webpage. I don't think that caused any serious problems.
- preommr 4y ago
  > I don't think that caused any serious problems. It's certainly a different approach - that's the big problem, people aren't used to this kind of approach. I just watched a video where someone, in response to the policy of not having 'rust' in a crate name, brought up how npm allows 'node', and golang allows 'go' in their package names. And those were mistakes, way more for npm, which they eventually kind of fixed with namespaces. And cargo is not getting namespaces, in fact the whole package system is pretty but that's a separate thing. My bet is that this whole is going to be a disaster, but maybe this is a baby step for more professionalism for future projects to learn from - even if it's about what not to do.

mjw1007 4y ago

I don't think the "this is power-tripping" model of what's going on is very likely. The "this is what you get if you ask lawyers for a trademark policy and don't pay enough attention to what you get back" model seems closer. This post by a former nodejs decision-maker provides some evidence for that: https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12lb0am/can_someone_explain_to_me_whats_happening_with/jg8f42o/ https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12lb0am/can_someone_e...

labster 4y ago
The article agrees, ending with: > I'm not saying heads should roll. I'm saying someone needs to take the wheel. If no one is at the wheel, Rust is unsafe at any speed.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
I can't imagine a competent lawyer putting wildly subjective and irrelevant and out of scope things into a document copyrighting a trademark. This is not lawyers this is Karens.
tourmalinetaco 4y ago
This is absolutely the product of a power-tripping political activist slamming in whatever comes to mind. Even the most worthless trademark lawyer would never add in unnecessary statements like banning guns at Rust-backed conferences.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

The problem of their intentions, and the character of the authors and approvers, is not at all solved by "they asked for comment and recieved comment" The problem is just what kinds of outlandish things they thought it was within their right to control. They still think that even after "recieving comment", and that is a problem.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

I have half a mind to start a framework and throw a conference all about using Rust to write the firmwares to intelligent extra-safe guns that refuse to fire without biometric and other extra super safety measures like distance from a registered bluetooth or wifi device, gps location, remote disable by police, etc. Surely the Rust Foundation doesn't insist that guns be hackable and error prone by being written in java or c or anything but the most reliable language available? (I don't own any guns, and if I did I would want it to be as dumb as a hammer not something controlled by software, so I'm neither gun-nut nor gun-control-nut, and this post is only serious about the point not the hypothetical used to illustrate the point.)