5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

gavinhoward 4y ago
> Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal? Defending myself is definitely a part of defending my family because if I am gone, there is no one else to defend them. > 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. Or themselves? Again, I claim the right to defend myself too. While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen. And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. They are places where crazy nuts of any persuasion may show up and open fire with impunity because they can expect no one to fire back. The Covenant school shooter chose the school over another more secure place, and it was people with guns that took the shooter out. The Aurora, Colorado shooting was in a gun-free zone, IIRC. There are others. By implementing this policy, the Rust Foundation will be broadcasting to every person with a killer's will and a gun that Rust events are prime targets, so ironically, this policy will be what makes Rust events dangerous. As for the business side, imagine that the Rust Foundation takes the same dislike to me as they have taken to firearms. Parts of that policy are very open-ended, such that the Foundation could decide they don't like me and come after me on principle for putting "written in Rust" in the README without the TM or Registered marks. This policy is open-ended enough for that. It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with. I'm not stupid, so I'm not going to depend on the Rust Foundation.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen. You know what, you make a good point. It's only a matter of time before there's a mass shooting at a technical conference in America. I mean, we have them in schools, theatres, churches, malls, grocery stores, sports events, parades, concerts, parks, banks... why not a technical conference? Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying. > It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. As an independent language developer, I appreciate that your point of view can work out in my favor, so I can't really disagree with it!
  - gavinhoward 4y ago
    > Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying. Yes, exactly. > In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I will say that I currently do this. I use C, shell, and my own language. And for C, I use as many compilers as I can.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      I'm not being sarcastic. The idea that we shouldn't use languages produced by corporations because their goals don't align with users helps me. My first paragraph was 1 part sarcasm, 1 part cynicism, 2 parts accepting the grim reality of America.
- thiht 4y ago
  > And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. Can you back that up? That’s not my experience from living in a country with no guns, hence no mass shootings.
  - gavinhoward 4y ago
    In America, where we have a mental illness epidemic. Culture also plays a big part.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
"The policy is about fire arms, not you." The policy is about pretecting a TRADEMARK, and the local law of the land or norms wrt personal arms is as irrelevant to a TRADEMARK as the local norms on weed or drinking on sundays or public dress codes. A property owner or an event organizer has a say in things like that, not a trademark copyright document.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Okay, so the problem is just the legal construct they're using? I guess I can see that, what should they use instead?
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    I don't know how you arrived at such a silly idea from that comment. The problem is as stated, not this other inexplicable random nonsense that can not be derived or implied or extrapolated from that remark. As I said already, right there, but I guess I'll repeat, because that isn't stupid: An event organizer could stipulate a condition like that if they wanted, subject to local laws allowing. A property owner could stipulate a condition like that, subject to local laws allowing. The Rust Foundation is not necessarily either of those entities, and so has just no business at all even expressing an opinion on things that are none of their business. And even in cases where they might be the event organizer, a trademark copyright has no relationship one way or another with such things as what is essentially a dress code or a local facility security measure or behavior standard. They can absolutely say that guns are not allowed at any events they happen to host, the same as they can say that shoes and shirts are required. But none of that has any place in the document laying out terms protecting the use of a trademark. Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      You capitalized "TRADEMARK" several times, so I thought you were bringing attention specifically to that aspect. I'm a bit confused now, based on your second comment. Was there another reason you were all-capsing "TRADEMARK"? It seems to me that an organization doesn't want their brand being associated with certain kinds of behavior. I realize you may want to engage in that behavior, but doesn't the brand have the right to control their logo? Edit: You heavily edited your comment after I had already replied to it, which is tricky. You should probably have written a new post if you had more to say. > Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is. I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event. For starters, we're talking about behaviors rather than identities. It's okay to be a gun owner, just like it's okay to be black, gay, or Christian. No one is trying to restrict any of those identities. What we're talking about here is that Rust doesn't want their brand and logo associated with certain behaviors. Namely, the behavior of bringing a gun to a technical meetup. You may feel that's an overreach, sure. But is it legal? Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? If it's not legal in certain jurisdictions, can't they still restrict the use of their logo in those jurisdictions? If they can't, doesn't that mean all brands have lost all control of their IP in those jurisdictions?

gavinhoward 4y ago

> Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal? Defending myself is definitely a part of defending my family because if I am gone, there is no one else to defend them. > 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. Or themselves? Again, I claim the right to defend myself too. While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen. And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. They are places where crazy nuts of any persuasion may show up and open fire with impunity because they can expect no one to fire back. The Covenant school shooter chose the school over another more secure place, and it was people with guns that took the shooter out. The Aurora, Colorado shooting was in a gun-free zone, IIRC. There are others. By implementing this policy, the Rust Foundation will be broadcasting to every person with a killer's will and a gun that Rust events are prime targets, so ironically, this policy will be what makes Rust events dangerous. As for the business side, imagine that the Rust Foundation takes the same dislike to me as they have taken to firearms. Parts of that policy are very open-ended, such that the Foundation could decide they don't like me and come after me on principle for putting "written in Rust" in the README without the TM or Registered marks. This policy is open-ended enough for that. It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with. I'm not stupid, so I'm not going to depend on the Rust Foundation.

ModernMech 4y ago
> While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen. You know what, you make a good point. It's only a matter of time before there's a mass shooting at a technical conference in America. I mean, we have them in schools, theatres, churches, malls, grocery stores, sports events, parades, concerts, parks, banks... why not a technical conference? Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying. > It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. As an independent language developer, I appreciate that your point of view can work out in my favor, so I can't really disagree with it!
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  > Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying. Yes, exactly. > In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I will say that I currently do this. I use C, shell, and my own language. And for C, I use as many compilers as I can.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    I'm not being sarcastic. The idea that we shouldn't use languages produced by corporations because their goals don't align with users helps me. My first paragraph was 1 part sarcasm, 1 part cynicism, 2 parts accepting the grim reality of America.
thiht 4y ago
> And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. Can you back that up? That’s not my experience from living in a country with no guns, hence no mass shootings.
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  In America, where we have a mental illness epidemic. Culture also plays a big part.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

"The policy is about fire arms, not you." The policy is about pretecting a TRADEMARK, and the local law of the land or norms wrt personal arms is as irrelevant to a TRADEMARK as the local norms on weed or drinking on sundays or public dress codes. A property owner or an event organizer has a say in things like that, not a trademark copyright document.

ModernMech 4y ago
Okay, so the problem is just the legal construct they're using? I guess I can see that, what should they use instead?
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  I don't know how you arrived at such a silly idea from that comment. The problem is as stated, not this other inexplicable random nonsense that can not be derived or implied or extrapolated from that remark. As I said already, right there, but I guess I'll repeat, because that isn't stupid: An event organizer could stipulate a condition like that if they wanted, subject to local laws allowing. A property owner could stipulate a condition like that, subject to local laws allowing. The Rust Foundation is not necessarily either of those entities, and so has just no business at all even expressing an opinion on things that are none of their business. And even in cases where they might be the event organizer, a trademark copyright has no relationship one way or another with such things as what is essentially a dress code or a local facility security measure or behavior standard. They can absolutely say that guns are not allowed at any events they happen to host, the same as they can say that shoes and shirts are required. But none of that has any place in the document laying out terms protecting the use of a trademark. Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    You capitalized "TRADEMARK" several times, so I thought you were bringing attention specifically to that aspect. I'm a bit confused now, based on your second comment. Was there another reason you were all-capsing "TRADEMARK"? It seems to me that an organization doesn't want their brand being associated with certain kinds of behavior. I realize you may want to engage in that behavior, but doesn't the brand have the right to control their logo? Edit: You heavily edited your comment after I had already replied to it, which is tricky. You should probably have written a new post if you had more to say. > Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is. I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event. For starters, we're talking about behaviors rather than identities. It's okay to be a gun owner, just like it's okay to be black, gay, or Christian. No one is trying to restrict any of those identities. What we're talking about here is that Rust doesn't want their brand and logo associated with certain behaviors. Namely, the behavior of bringing a gun to a technical meetup. You may feel that's an overreach, sure. But is it legal? Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? If it's not legal in certain jurisdictions, can't they still restrict the use of their logo in those jurisdictions? If they can't, doesn't that mean all brands have lost all control of their IP in those jurisdictions?