5 ms·

> 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 i

> 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. I find your attempted dichotomy between "identities" and "behaviors" unpersuasive. "Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"? Yeah, no. And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. > Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness, and become even less likely to use Rust for anything than I was before (the probability of that was already extremely low, btw, for actual technical reasons rather than political virtue signaling, but a discussion of that would not be on-topic for this thread).

ModernMech 3y ago
> "Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"? Well, aside from the fact that being black has little to do with wearing corn rows, and being gay has little to do with kissing (I'll grant that praying is tightly coupled to being Christian), I think it's fine for an IP holder to set a dress code, and to prohibit what kind of sexual activity can be endorsed using their IP. That's their right. Doesn't Disney get to say "no" to strip clubs who want to hold Disney nights, with official Disney logos and everything? The legal basis for them saying no to that is trademark law, which itself is rooted in the US Constitution. The praying thing would be a can of worms because of how religion works in our country, we'd have to talk about a more specific hypothetical for that to be a vehicle for productive discussion. > And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. Okay, so you agree with me that the original poster was saying that the problem was with the legal vehicle used to enforce this policy. That poster made it seem that my inference was silly and inexplicable random nonsense, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who took it that way. But that still doesn't clear up if they can't use trademark for this purpose, and nothing you've said in your post really addresses that. Also there is a question of whether or not Rust should be able to restrict whether or not firearms are allowed at events aspiring to strongly associate themselves with Rust, specifically by using their trademarked logo. >> Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? > Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness Great! So we are in agreement. But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons? I understand that you think it's the wrong use of trademark (and others have said that maybe a separate venue or event license is more appropriate), but that still doesn't mean that trademark can't be used like this. That is not clear to me. Either way, this seems like the best outcome, where everyone exercises their free speech rights, and right to association, while maintaining ownership rights. Rust gets to build a community they want, you get to not associate with them if you so choose, you and I are free to use whatever language we want, you and I are free to laugh at anyone we want, and the only thing you can't do is hold an event with Rust IP and allow people to bring their guns. You are still free to hold an event and invite people to bring their guns, but you won't be allowed to use the Rust IP. A small price to pay for freedom and liberty.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons? I "asserted" nothing of the sort. In fact I said exactly the opposite. Go back and read the part where I said "Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness...".
  - ModernMech 3y ago
    I saw where you state the opposite and I indicated that by saying "great we agree!" But you also said this: > I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. What did you mean by this if not that trademark cannot be used to enforce where/when/how a trademark is used? Rust wants to do exactly that and you say they have no business doing so under trademark law. Can you please clarify? Because your statements seem contradictory.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > What did you mean by this if not that trademark cannot be used to enforce where/when/how a trademark is used? I meant exactly what I said -- that putting this in a trademark document is a bad idea. That is not me "stating the opposite" in any sense. You do understand that there are many things that are legal but which are nonetheless bad ideas, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Actually, I think you do understand that, and are basically just trolling at this point. We're done here.

ModernMech 3y ago

> "Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"? Well, aside from the fact that being black has little to do with wearing corn rows, and being gay has little to do with kissing (I'll grant that praying is tightly coupled to being Christian), I think it's fine for an IP holder to set a dress code, and to prohibit what kind of sexual activity can be endorsed using their IP. That's their right. Doesn't Disney get to say "no" to strip clubs who want to hold Disney nights, with official Disney logos and everything? The legal basis for them saying no to that is trademark law, which itself is rooted in the US Constitution. The praying thing would be a can of worms because of how religion works in our country, we'd have to talk about a more specific hypothetical for that to be a vehicle for productive discussion. > And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. Okay, so you agree with me that the original poster was saying that the problem was with the legal vehicle used to enforce this policy. That poster made it seem that my inference was silly and inexplicable random nonsense, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who took it that way. But that still doesn't clear up if they can't use trademark for this purpose, and nothing you've said in your post really addresses that. Also there is a question of whether or not Rust should be able to restrict whether or not firearms are allowed at events aspiring to strongly associate themselves with Rust, specifically by using their trademarked logo. >> Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? > Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness Great! So we are in agreement. But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons? I understand that you think it's the wrong use of trademark (and others have said that maybe a separate venue or event license is more appropriate), but that still doesn't mean that trademark can't be used like this. That is not clear to me. Either way, this seems like the best outcome, where everyone exercises their free speech rights, and right to association, while maintaining ownership rights. Rust gets to build a community they want, you get to not associate with them if you so choose, you and I are free to use whatever language we want, you and I are free to laugh at anyone we want, and the only thing you can't do is hold an event with Rust IP and allow people to bring their guns. You are still free to hold an event and invite people to bring their guns, but you won't be allowed to use the Rust IP. A small price to pay for freedom and liberty.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons? I "asserted" nothing of the sort. In fact I said exactly the opposite. Go back and read the part where I said "Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness...".
- ModernMech 3y ago
  I saw where you state the opposite and I indicated that by saying "great we agree!" But you also said this: > I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. What did you mean by this if not that trademark cannot be used to enforce where/when/how a trademark is used? Rust wants to do exactly that and you say they have no business doing so under trademark law. Can you please clarify? Because your statements seem contradictory.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > What did you mean by this if not that trademark cannot be used to enforce where/when/how a trademark is used? I meant exactly what I said -- that putting this in a trademark document is a bad idea. That is not me "stating the opposite" in any sense. You do understand that there are many things that are legal but which are nonetheless bad ideas, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Actually, I think you do understand that, and are basically just trolling at this point. We're done here.