4 ms·

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

by ptx 4y 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 4y ago
So a GCC implementation of Rust cannot call itself The GCC Rust compiler. Not sure that that's reasonable.
- ptx 4y 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 4y ago
    This is a draft policy, right? Wouldn't it make sense to provide this feedback directly to the foundation? https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/04/12/trademark-policy-draft-feedback.html#feedback https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/04/12/trademark-... Registered trademarks have to be defended, if you don't defend them they can be invalidated. Forking the language is certainly one kind of feedback. But I get the feeling that most people who have a problem with this new policy would rather that there was no policy at all, no enforcement. I don't think that's very realistic.
    - spion 4y ago
      Which worst-case scenario would you choose? a) the trademark getting invalidated b) creating a chilling effect which robs the community of momentum on meetups, books, tutorials or even just really enthusiastic fan/technical channels like for example https://www.youtube.com/@NoBoilerplate https://www.youtube.com/@NoBoilerplate
      - yebyen 4y ago
        If I thought I needed to have a "use of marks" policy at all, I probably wouldn't choose to draft a policy that instead permits absolutely anyone to go around masquerading as The Rust Language, as, well, that would not accomplish any goal. You don't write a policy like this in such a way that it permits people to use the mark for just anything. It needs to be restrictive, at least a little bit. If it's registered then it needs to be protected; if you allow the indiscriminate use, you lose the trademark (and then just anyone can call their copier a Xerox machine on the package. Now if you're Xerox Corporation you actually do have a problem.) Then again, I am a Rubyist, so I just went and checked on what trademark policies the Ruby language has, and as it turns out (unless I missed something) there are none. There also isn't a Ruby foundation – there's Ruby Central, the non-profit responsible for organizing the conferences (those are RubyConf and RailsConf) but they don't exert controlling authority over any community outside of the cons. They don't own any trademarks as far as I can tell. Maybe don't need this at all. There is a Rails Foundation. Another example, not a language but: DHH owns the "Rails" mark and the trademark policy is this extremely reasonable one-pager (that also provides some specific real-world examples of what types of abusive uses it is intended to prevent. It's clear enough to me why we can't have unauthorized "Ruby Rails" dolls for sale by just anyone.) https://rubyonrails.org/trademarks https://rubyonrails.org/trademarks I don't know how similar Rust Foundation is to Rails Foundation, but if it is too similar then I think I may begin to understand why people do not like it so much. No offense to DHH. It does feel kind of circular. "Why is there a trademark policy?" Because we have this trademark and we don't want to lose it. "Why do we have a trademark?" To be held in trust by the foundation. Why do we have a foundation? To protect the interests of the community. Well, if the community seemingly hates this new policy so much, are we doing that? --- There is a third option though, you didn't mention: the Rust Foundation could actually listen to the community's feedback and draft a new proposal. I'm sure they won't let their mark get invalidated. I'm less sure they will listen now. (People all seem to have made up their mind that no compromise is possible, from where I sit.) But maybe Ruby as a counter-example is more helpful than I thought. What company or collective stewards Ruby on behalf of the Ruby community? There isn't one, at least not officially. I used to think of Heroku as the company. Matz, the language's creator was employed there as "Chief Architect of Ruby" – is he still associated with Heroku/SalesForce now? I don't know. I tried to find out if that is still true, all I found was a Wiki article that says he works somewhere else today. It's unclear if he still retains the title and position at Heroku/SalesForce. So maybe Ruby didn't need a foundation, or maybe it did. Look at Heroku now. If Ruby was counting on their support, I think we'd all be in some kind of trouble. Maybe we are in trouble. I don't know how you feel about Ruby, but I like it! And I don't feel in trouble, that's good for me, so maybe I see your point. I hope that we get to have more cool events where practitioners can meet up and advance the state of the art for their favorite language. And I'm frankly not sure if any of this information makes me more or less interested in using Ruby or Rust today. I think I'm fairly indifferent about it all. I don't want to get sued, mainly. So I guess I do at least understand "Why CrabLang" then.

by ptx 4y ago

spion 4y ago

So a GCC implementation of Rust cannot call itself The GCC Rust compiler. Not sure that that's reasonable.

ptx 4y 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 4y ago
  This is a draft policy, right? Wouldn't it make sense to provide this feedback directly to the foundation? https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/04/12/trademark-policy-draft-feedback.html#feedback https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/04/12/trademark-... Registered trademarks have to be defended, if you don't defend them they can be invalidated. Forking the language is certainly one kind of feedback. But I get the feeling that most people who have a problem with this new policy would rather that there was no policy at all, no enforcement. I don't think that's very realistic.
  - spion 4y ago
    Which worst-case scenario would you choose? a) the trademark getting invalidated b) creating a chilling effect which robs the community of momentum on meetups, books, tutorials or even just really enthusiastic fan/technical channels like for example https://www.youtube.com/@NoBoilerplate https://www.youtube.com/@NoBoilerplate
    - yebyen 4y ago
      If I thought I needed to have a "use of marks" policy at all, I probably wouldn't choose to draft a policy that instead permits absolutely anyone to go around masquerading as The Rust Language, as, well, that would not accomplish any goal. You don't write a policy like this in such a way that it permits people to use the mark for just anything. It needs to be restrictive, at least a little bit. If it's registered then it needs to be protected; if you allow the indiscriminate use, you lose the trademark (and then just anyone can call their copier a Xerox machine on the package. Now if you're Xerox Corporation you actually do have a problem.) Then again, I am a Rubyist, so I just went and checked on what trademark policies the Ruby language has, and as it turns out (unless I missed something) there are none. There also isn't a Ruby foundation – there's Ruby Central, the non-profit responsible for organizing the conferences (those are RubyConf and RailsConf) but they don't exert controlling authority over any community outside of the cons. They don't own any trademarks as far as I can tell. Maybe don't need this at all. There is a Rails Foundation. Another example, not a language but: DHH owns the "Rails" mark and the trademark policy is this extremely reasonable one-pager (that also provides some specific real-world examples of what types of abusive uses it is intended to prevent. It's clear enough to me why we can't have unauthorized "Ruby Rails" dolls for sale by just anyone.) https://rubyonrails.org/trademarks https://rubyonrails.org/trademarks I don't know how similar Rust Foundation is to Rails Foundation, but if it is too similar then I think I may begin to understand why people do not like it so much. No offense to DHH. It does feel kind of circular. "Why is there a trademark policy?" Because we have this trademark and we don't want to lose it. "Why do we have a trademark?" To be held in trust by the foundation. Why do we have a foundation? To protect the interests of the community. Well, if the community seemingly hates this new policy so much, are we doing that? --- There is a third option though, you didn't mention: the Rust Foundation could actually listen to the community's feedback and draft a new proposal. I'm sure they won't let their mark get invalidated. I'm less sure they will listen now. (People all seem to have made up their mind that no compromise is possible, from where I sit.) But maybe Ruby as a counter-example is more helpful than I thought. What company or collective stewards Ruby on behalf of the Ruby community? There isn't one, at least not officially. I used to think of Heroku as the company. Matz, the language's creator was employed there as "Chief Architect of Ruby" – is he still associated with Heroku/SalesForce now? I don't know. I tried to find out if that is still true, all I found was a Wiki article that says he works somewhere else today. It's unclear if he still retains the title and position at Heroku/SalesForce. So maybe Ruby didn't need a foundation, or maybe it did. Look at Heroku now. If Ruby was counting on their support, I think we'd all be in some kind of trouble. Maybe we are in trouble. I don't know how you feel about Ruby, but I like it! And I don't feel in trouble, that's good for me, so maybe I see your point. I hope that we get to have more cool events where practitioners can meet up and advance the state of the art for their favorite language. And I'm frankly not sure if any of this information makes me more or less interested in using Ruby or Rust today. I think I'm fairly indifferent about it all. I don't want to get sued, mainly. So I guess I do at least understand "Why CrabLang" then.