4 ms·

OK but it says "100% less bureaucracy", although it doesn't actually seem to have a plan for that. Changing the name is... fine? Like it's definitely a thing yo

OK but it says "100% less bureaucracy", although it doesn't actually seem to have a plan for that. Changing the name is... fine? Like it's definitely a thing you can do, for sure. I'm not sure what that accomplishes - you can use this project and there's no trademark policy so... I guess you could abuse that if you wanted to? Like you could start your own "CrabCon" and no one could say anything about it legally... ok.

ngngngng 3y ago
The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it. They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  > The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it. Right, and like I said, that's fine. But it's pretty meaningless and actually has literally nothing to do with the language, which has no trademarks associated with it (nor could it ever have such a trademark as the foundation does not "own" the language). So forking a language over a trademark that doesn't apply to a language makes very little sense. > They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language. No one is threatening to sue anyone for using the rust programming language. That is an extremely incorrect view. At best you could say there is a threat to sue someone for how they use certain terms or icons, but this is completely unrelated to the language itself. It's also completely standard. Further, the document in question was a draft submitted for feedback. Almost any language is going to want trademark. Python recently had to deal with a troll trying to assert ownership over the branding because they had not defended against this. As someone mentions in an issue on the crab repo, How would you feel about a shady company posturing as "The Official Rust" distributing a paid copy of the compiler? Does that seems like a thing we as a community should allow? That's what the trademark policy is for: preventing shady abuses of our beloved lang and community. These things will absolutely happen - they have happened before to other languages! I think software developers just have no idea how these things work. You know that every LICENSE.txt is a "threat to sue you" by your standard? edit: Also, you're wrong. Their goals go beyond just removal of the trademark policy.
- dralley 3y ago
  > The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it. They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language. Neither is Rust, so we're back to this being pretty stupid.

ngngngng 3y ago

The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it. They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language.

insanitybit 3y ago
> The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it. Right, and like I said, that's fine. But it's pretty meaningless and actually has literally nothing to do with the language, which has no trademarks associated with it (nor could it ever have such a trademark as the foundation does not "own" the language). So forking a language over a trademark that doesn't apply to a language makes very little sense. > They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language. No one is threatening to sue anyone for using the rust programming language. That is an extremely incorrect view. At best you could say there is a threat to sue someone for how they use certain terms or icons, but this is completely unrelated to the language itself. It's also completely standard. Further, the document in question was a draft submitted for feedback. Almost any language is going to want trademark. Python recently had to deal with a troll trying to assert ownership over the branding because they had not defended against this. As someone mentions in an issue on the crab repo, How would you feel about a shady company posturing as "The Official Rust" distributing a paid copy of the compiler? Does that seems like a thing we as a community should allow? That's what the trademark policy is for: preventing shady abuses of our beloved lang and community. These things will absolutely happen - they have happened before to other languages! I think software developers just have no idea how these things work. You know that every LICENSE.txt is a "threat to sue you" by your standard? edit: Also, you're wrong. Their goals go beyond just removal of the trademark policy.
dralley 3y ago
> The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it. They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language. Neither is Rust, so we're back to this being pretty stupid.