5 ms·

No, what is happening is a storm in a glass of water. _This_ is what is hurting the language and the environment. You have to protect trademarks or you lose th

by hurril 3y ago

No, what is happening is a storm in a glass of water. _This_ is what is hurting the language and the environment. You have to protect trademarks or you lose them. Having a late change to a conference is definitely bad and sad but there is simply no need for that to imply a rage quit and all this drama. That is a non-sequiteur. Suck it up, make the talk on youtube (or somewhere else); I'm sure there are lots of people that wish to see it; I know I would. Enough drama!

jakear 3y ago
> You have to protect trademarks or you lose them. Let them be lost, who cares? It's not even a novel name, they just co-opted an existing word for their little gang and now don't want anyone else to use it. Even Oracle, the chief lawyer-assholes of the industry, have basically given up on trying to own "JavaScript", and that at least is a uniquely derived term.
- Avamander 3y ago
  > Let them be lost, who cares? Users who don't want malware/abandonware. See more: Mumble.com and Mumble.info
  - jakear 3y ago
    You're arguing one of them should have exclusive right to use the word "mumble" in reference to software related to vocal communication?
    - Avamander 3y ago
      Yes, one of them should have the right to use that logo and name for VoIP, absolutely. There are plenty of names everyone can pick that don't namesquat on an existing project. I find it especially nasty if it's a FOSS project that gets its name abused.
      - wink 3y ago
        I'm not sure if people who don't double check the URL are the same people who would memorize or compare logos on a site... (which is in no way a defense of what's happening, but I don't think the other thing would help either)
- hurril 3y ago
  Do you think they would care if you started a company named Oracle?
  - jakear 3y ago
    Conflating product names with legal company names does nothing to help the discussion. The fact of the matter is I can have a business called https://learnjavascript.online/ https://learnjavascript.online/ but not one called https://learnrust.online/ https://learnrust.online/, because the Rust team has decided they are uniquely suited to govern all usage of the word "rust" as their dumb little users can't manage to think for themselves and determine which resources are worth consulting.
    - hurril 3y ago
      They are trademarks, though, are they not? Should I be permitted to fork Go an call it Rust? learnrust.com with fine resources to learn ru.. I mean go, no wait. Rust. Definitely rust. I am a user of Rust and I am neither dumb nor little, but thank you for your kind consideration of my mental abilities. But I think you are the one missing the point here: it has to do with the stability of the brand, language and environment; I've invested a lot of hours into this and will continue to do so. Without the protection I would not because it could be gone tomorrow, basically.
      - jakear 3y ago
        It's the Rust foundation that considers it's users dumb and little, unable to think for themselves and determine which resources are worth using. How could you in good faith read what I said and come away thinking I support controlling the availability of resources named rust?
      - hurril 3y ago
        > It's the Rust foundation that considers it's users dumb and little, unable to think for themselves and determine which resources are worth using. How could you in good faith read what I said and come away thinking I support controlling the availability of resources named rust? Those are your words and I think you should own them. The trademark process is there to prevent malicious entities from doing that. And in an environment where some brand has a certain value, there will be people that would want to infringe on it to have a share of the proceeds. Why else are we even having this conversation, if it wasn't for the fact that people _do_ want to infringe on the brand? I went with the Go example to make the difference bigger. We can talk about the Crabs Language instead; imagine they take that language in another direction. (I don't mind that at all, doing so probably adds to the community of knowledge and information so I'm all for it.) But now let's also call them Rust. What does learnrust.com mean, then? Which Rust? A new users or a company looking to hire resources in this arena, would you call them dumb and little for not being able to expertly tease out the differences?
tialaramex 3y ago
> You have to protect trademarks or you lose them. Not really. How do you imagine this could work if it was true? It's a great excuse if you're looking to throw your weight around of course. Oh the poor Disney corporation had to sue that primary school for a bajillion dollars, or else they would lose their trademark. Does that sort of thing even pass the sniff test for you? And it works out great for lawyers too. Instead of only getting paid when there's actual controversy that needs their skills, they can collect a fee for this "protection" work.
- hurril 3y ago
  Are you asking me to defend Disney's actions because I side with Rust at this point? I think that it is fair that someone defends their name and brand and I definitely wish that you be permitted to do so, so that someone is unable to be too untoward to your business.
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    You keep making the claim that trademark enforcement is about protection against bad actors, but that is emphatically false here. Rust's trademark policy is extremely restrictive, to the point that Rust the language can only be considered proprietary. If you haven't read it, it's here: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/#trademark-policy https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-me... They aren't using trademark to defend against malicious actors. They're using trademark to segregate and divide the Rust community into those who are "officially part of the Rust community" (their words) and those who aren't.
- toyg 3y ago
  Sadly that's indeed how trademark law works - if you don't make even a token effort at enforcing your rights, they can become common names and effectively be lost. That doesn't mean one should rabidly go after every single possible infringing use, obviously, which is what the infamous drafted Rust policy kinda did. It's one of those things that are just not black and white, because laws say one thing ("be harsh all of the time") and actual mores around enforcement say another ("leave people alone when they're clearly in good faith").
cookieperson 3y ago
Nah what happened was whack and if they respect themselves or wanted that keynote to mean anything they should have quit. Saying "suck it up" is abusive relationship status...
jntvjnvutnuvt 3y ago
You are okay with developers losing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees because they altered the Rust logo?

by hurril 3y ago

jakear 3y ago

> You have to protect trademarks or you lose them. Let them be lost, who cares? It's not even a novel name, they just co-opted an existing word for their little gang and now don't want anyone else to use it. Even Oracle, the chief lawyer-assholes of the industry, have basically given up on trying to own "JavaScript", and that at least is a uniquely derived term.

Avamander 3y ago
> Let them be lost, who cares? Users who don't want malware/abandonware. See more: Mumble.com and Mumble.info
- jakear 3y ago
  You're arguing one of them should have exclusive right to use the word "mumble" in reference to software related to vocal communication?
  - Avamander 3y ago
    Yes, one of them should have the right to use that logo and name for VoIP, absolutely. There are plenty of names everyone can pick that don't namesquat on an existing project. I find it especially nasty if it's a FOSS project that gets its name abused.
    - wink 3y ago
      I'm not sure if people who don't double check the URL are the same people who would memorize or compare logos on a site... (which is in no way a defense of what's happening, but I don't think the other thing would help either)
hurril 3y ago
Do you think they would care if you started a company named Oracle?
- jakear 3y ago
  Conflating product names with legal company names does nothing to help the discussion. The fact of the matter is I can have a business called https://learnjavascript.online/ https://learnjavascript.online/ but not one called https://learnrust.online/ https://learnrust.online/, because the Rust team has decided they are uniquely suited to govern all usage of the word "rust" as their dumb little users can't manage to think for themselves and determine which resources are worth consulting.
  - hurril 3y ago
    They are trademarks, though, are they not? Should I be permitted to fork Go an call it Rust? learnrust.com with fine resources to learn ru.. I mean go, no wait. Rust. Definitely rust. I am a user of Rust and I am neither dumb nor little, but thank you for your kind consideration of my mental abilities. But I think you are the one missing the point here: it has to do with the stability of the brand, language and environment; I've invested a lot of hours into this and will continue to do so. Without the protection I would not because it could be gone tomorrow, basically.
    - jakear 3y ago
      It's the Rust foundation that considers it's users dumb and little, unable to think for themselves and determine which resources are worth using. How could you in good faith read what I said and come away thinking I support controlling the availability of resources named rust?
    - hurril 3y ago
      > It's the Rust foundation that considers it's users dumb and little, unable to think for themselves and determine which resources are worth using. How could you in good faith read what I said and come away thinking I support controlling the availability of resources named rust? Those are your words and I think you should own them. The trademark process is there to prevent malicious entities from doing that. And in an environment where some brand has a certain value, there will be people that would want to infringe on it to have a share of the proceeds. Why else are we even having this conversation, if it wasn't for the fact that people _do_ want to infringe on the brand? I went with the Go example to make the difference bigger. We can talk about the Crabs Language instead; imagine they take that language in another direction. (I don't mind that at all, doing so probably adds to the community of knowledge and information so I'm all for it.) But now let's also call them Rust. What does learnrust.com mean, then? Which Rust? A new users or a company looking to hire resources in this arena, would you call them dumb and little for not being able to expertly tease out the differences?

tialaramex 3y ago

> You have to protect trademarks or you lose them. Not really. How do you imagine this could work if it was true? It's a great excuse if you're looking to throw your weight around of course. Oh the poor Disney corporation had to sue that primary school for a bajillion dollars, or else they would lose their trademark. Does that sort of thing even pass the sniff test for you? And it works out great for lawyers too. Instead of only getting paid when there's actual controversy that needs their skills, they can collect a fee for this "protection" work.

hurril 3y ago
Are you asking me to defend Disney's actions because I side with Rust at this point? I think that it is fair that someone defends their name and brand and I definitely wish that you be permitted to do so, so that someone is unable to be too untoward to your business.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  You keep making the claim that trademark enforcement is about protection against bad actors, but that is emphatically false here. Rust's trademark policy is extremely restrictive, to the point that Rust the language can only be considered proprietary. If you haven't read it, it's here: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/#trademark-policy https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-me... They aren't using trademark to defend against malicious actors. They're using trademark to segregate and divide the Rust community into those who are "officially part of the Rust community" (their words) and those who aren't.
toyg 3y ago
Sadly that's indeed how trademark law works - if you don't make even a token effort at enforcing your rights, they can become common names and effectively be lost. That doesn't mean one should rabidly go after every single possible infringing use, obviously, which is what the infamous drafted Rust policy kinda did. It's one of those things that are just not black and white, because laws say one thing ("be harsh all of the time") and actual mores around enforcement say another ("leave people alone when they're clearly in good faith").

cookieperson 3y ago

Nah what happened was whack and if they respect themselves or wanted that keynote to mean anything they should have quit. Saying "suck it up" is abusive relationship status...

jntvjnvutnuvt 3y ago

You are okay with developers losing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees because they altered the Rust logo?