3 ms·

> someone having a trademark doesn’t mean that outsiders aren’t allowed to say or write the name. Did you read the new trademark policy?

by spion 3y ago

hobofan 3y ago
Yes, and no trademark policy in the world can make uttering the trademark a forbidden word that no one is ever allowed to say/write.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  Why risk it
  - hobofan 3y ago
    The point is: There is no risk. That's the same as taking homeopathics, "just in case". In the end the only thing that does (apart from possible placebo effect) is signal to everyone that you don't have any understanding of the basics of natural sciences (or in this matter the basics of trademark law).
    - spion 3y ago
      Then why is the foundation adding language that signals their intention to sue people who use the trademark in domain names, learning material, packages and so on?
    - nix0n 3y ago
      Getting sued can be expensive, even if there is little chance of losing the suit.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      The point is, yes there is, and that it doesn't matter if the document would fail in a court challenge, it's still the document they wrote and the terms they obviously want and think are reasonable, and so it is only reasonable to assume they will try to defend them. If you want to flout them and get them to sue you so that you can force it to be challenenged in court and hopefully you win and open the door for everyone else, I'm sure they would all appreciate it. But even aside from whether it would hold up in court or not, it's already a problem that they even tried to claim such things. They should absolutely be criticized for that. It is not only impeccably fair to criticize them for that document, but there is no more perfectly fair and unassailable way to do it than by simply taking it at it's word and adhering to what it says. No matter how you try to slice it, it's just not even slightly unreasonable to simply do what the Rust Foundation commanded everyone to do.
ptx 3y ago
I did, and it says (in section 3.1): "The law [...] prohibits creating a 'likelihood of confusion' but allows for 'nominative use.' For example, you cannot say you are distributing the Rust compiler when what you are distributing differs from the version distributed by the Rust Project, because people would be confused [...] However, you can say you use and like the Rust software, that you participate in the Rust community, that you are providing an unmodified version of the Rust software, or that you wrote a manual describing how to develop software using Rust." And in section 4.1.3: "You may use the Word Marks, but not the Logos, to truthfully describe the relationship between your software and ours. Our Marks should be used after a verb or preposition that describes the relationship between your software and ours. So you may say, for example, 'the Dungeness tool for the Rust compiler' but may not say 'the Dungeness Rust compiler,' which suggests that Dungeness is the source of the Rust compiler."
- spion 3y ago
  So a GCC implementation of Rust cannot call itself The GCC Rust compiler. Not sure that that's reasonable.
  - ptx 3y ago
    Yeah, that part is a little strange. They mention in section 4.1.4 that you must make clear that you're referring to the Rust language and not the Rust software, and they suggest doing that by saying "ABC compiler for Rust" instead. But that phrasing definitely doesn't make the intended distinction any clearer to my ears. It also seems strange that they would allow a different compiler to use the trademark to refer to the language, as in "ABC compiler for Rust", without any requirement that the language implemented by the compiler is in fact the Rust™ language with "the same features and functionality", so that it doesn't create exactly the kind of confusion they're trying to avoid with this policy. Edit: I'm not necessarily in favor of such conformance requirements. It's a tool that can be used both for good and for evil: Java used it to successfully defend against Microsoft but also to (in effect) prevent Adoptium from distributing OpenJ9.
    - yebyen 3y ago

> someone having a trademark doesn’t mean that outsiders aren’t allowed to say or write the name. Did you read the new trademark policy?

by spion 3y ago

> someone having a trademark doesn’t mean that outsiders aren’t allowed to say or write the name. Did you read the new trademark policy?

hobofan 3y ago

Yes, and no trademark policy in the world can make uttering the trademark a forbidden word that no one is ever allowed to say/write.

throwawaymaths 3y ago
Why risk it
- hobofan 3y ago
  The point is: There is no risk. That's the same as taking homeopathics, "just in case". In the end the only thing that does (apart from possible placebo effect) is signal to everyone that you don't have any understanding of the basics of natural sciences (or in this matter the basics of trademark law).
  - spion 3y ago
    Then why is the foundation adding language that signals their intention to sue people who use the trademark in domain names, learning material, packages and so on?
  - nix0n 3y ago
    Getting sued can be expensive, even if there is little chance of losing the suit.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    The point is, yes there is, and that it doesn't matter if the document would fail in a court challenge, it's still the document they wrote and the terms they obviously want and think are reasonable, and so it is only reasonable to assume they will try to defend them. If you want to flout them and get them to sue you so that you can force it to be challenenged in court and hopefully you win and open the door for everyone else, I'm sure they would all appreciate it. But even aside from whether it would hold up in court or not, it's already a problem that they even tried to claim such things. They should absolutely be criticized for that. It is not only impeccably fair to criticize them for that document, but there is no more perfectly fair and unassailable way to do it than by simply taking it at it's word and adhering to what it says. No matter how you try to slice it, it's just not even slightly unreasonable to simply do what the Rust Foundation commanded everyone to do.

ptx 3y ago

I did, and it says (in section 3.1): "The law [...] prohibits creating a 'likelihood of confusion' but allows for 'nominative use.' For example, you cannot say you are distributing the Rust compiler when what you are distributing differs from the version distributed by the Rust Project, because people would be confused [...] However, you can say you use and like the Rust software, that you participate in the Rust community, that you are providing an unmodified version of the Rust software, or that you wrote a manual describing how to develop software using Rust." And in section 4.1.3: "You may use the Word Marks, but not the Logos, to truthfully describe the relationship between your software and ours. Our Marks should be used after a verb or preposition that describes the relationship between your software and ours. So you may say, for example, 'the Dungeness tool for the Rust compiler' but may not say 'the Dungeness Rust compiler,' which suggests that Dungeness is the source of the Rust compiler."

spion 3y ago
So a GCC implementation of Rust cannot call itself The GCC Rust compiler. Not sure that that's reasonable.
- ptx 3y ago
  Yeah, that part is a little strange. They mention in section 4.1.4 that you must make clear that you're referring to the Rust language and not the Rust software, and they suggest doing that by saying "ABC compiler for Rust" instead. But that phrasing definitely doesn't make the intended distinction any clearer to my ears. It also seems strange that they would allow a different compiler to use the trademark to refer to the language, as in "ABC compiler for Rust", without any requirement that the language implemented by the compiler is in fact the Rust™ language with "the same features and functionality", so that it doesn't create exactly the kind of confusion they're trying to avoid with this policy. Edit: I'm not necessarily in favor of such conformance requirements. It's a tool that can be used both for good and for evil: Java used it to successfully defend against Microsoft but also to (in effect) prevent Adoptium from distributing OpenJ9.
  - yebyen 3y ago