8 ms·

Rust Trademark Policy Updates

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
> The crates prefixes "rust-" and "cargo-" are no longer reserved to the Rust Project. Gosh they really should have used namespaces, huh.
- melony 2y ago
  There's nothing stopping them from just adding the feature like npm.
  - dathinab 2y ago
    There are plans to add namespaces AFIK, they are just quite early stage. Through for a long time (part of rust developers) haven't been very happy with the idea. a stuff like `abcde/bar` vs. `abcbe/bar` are a total pain. But there where two points which pushed things in the direction of having them. 1) Differentiating between 1st and 3rd party extensions of a project (e.g. is actix-XXXX "blessed" by actix or not) 2) companies want this for a bunch of reasons.
    - sieabahlpark 2y ago
      [dead]
nindalf 2y ago
This subject is a touchy one because it usually attracts a lot of people who are upset because they think they’ve lost something they had. A lot of those comments start with “I’m not a lawyer but …” Then all of these upset people writing angry comments creates an impression of drama. Then reaction streamers on YouTube read these comments out and get their viewers riled up over a non issue. That’s when the real drama starts. I’d urge people to remember that this policy is very similar to the Python Foundation. If Rust is doomed to be only as successful as Python that’s not a terrible outcome.
- jchw 2y ago
  Oh, Rust will definitely not fail because of trademark policies like this, anymore than Python succeeded because of trademark policies. In fact I think it's literally the opposite; seeing policies like this being set up is a sign that the project is wildly successful. I suspect Guido van Rossum was not worried about uses of the non-existent Python trademark in the late 80s. The Rust foundation would have a hard time destroying Rust's momentum even if they wanted to.
  - nindalf 2y ago
    You’ve misread my comment. I definitely think this policy is a step in the right direction. My reference to python is a response to people claiming that rust will fail because of this trademark policy. If Python didn’t fail because of their similar policy, then Rust won’t either.
    - jchw 2y ago
      I didn't misread your comment: I'm not really concerned with whether or not the policy is considered a step in the right direction or not, just suggesting that it really doesn't matter at all to the success or failure of Rust. Furthermore, Python is a pretty bad example. The Python Software Foundation has had multiple high-profile instances of reasonable outcry. See: DjangoCon Africa, or the banning of Tim Peters. The Python Software Foundation exists because of the tremendous success of Python, not because of the tremendous success of their policies.
      - nindalf 2y ago
        Yeah I read your top level comment complaining about a “power grab”. You’re welcome to get worked up over a non issue. I won’t spend any time convincing you otherwise.
        jchw 2y ago
        Convince me of what? What's the point of a reply like this?
jchw 2y ago
Most interesting bit to me is this. > Using the Rust trademarks for social and small non-profit events like meetups, tutorials, and the like is allowed for events that are free to attend. Your materials for the event must not imply that the event is officially endorsed or run by the Rust Project or Rust Foundation unless you have written permission. For commercial events (including sponsored ones), please check in with us. It sort of reminds me of Nintendo's awkward rules for community-ran tournaments of their games (which, well, pretty much make it impossible to do sustainably.) I see their point (someone might mistake something called e.g. "New York Rust Conference" for being official) but using trademark to enforce rules on unofficial events is an interesting maneuver that seems to me to be relatively recent. Go's trademark policy has a similar looking rule: > The Go word mark may be used referentially in events, community groups, or other gatherings related to the programming language, but it may not be used in a manner that implies official status or endorsement. At this point, it sounds more permissive: seems like it blanket allows uses to just refer to it if it's clear that it's not official. > [...] Events and community groups may be subject to the Go programming language’s Code of Conduct, and violations of the Code of Conduct may be deemed incompatible with use of the Go Trademarks. But then there's this, which seems to imply that your ability to use the Go trademark in reference to Go in a way that doesn't make your event sound official still obligates you to adhere to their Code of Conduct when conducting your event. So it seems like this is a new part of the metagame. I've not paid attention to policies like these. Could someone with more experience help me understand the context here? Specifically: - Is this a new tactic, at least in terms of open source communities? It seems like it to me. In ~2010 it felt like open source was more fork-happy, ad-hoc and less governance-oriented, but now every other project has corporate backing, multiple committees, Code of Conducts, etc. Is the use of trademark and brand rules to exercise some control over the ecosystem new? Did someone pioneer it? - Also, is there an inspiration for this tactic? e.g. is it inspired by a specific incident or state of affairs? Have these rules actually ever been used to do anything? I'm guessing the real answer is that they just don't want to explicitly give up the ability to exercise these rules, but I'm not sure and I don't know how to look. Either way, it's interesting to see committees and foundations going for these sorts of power grabs. It doesn't look like this is the case for all programming languages which have trademarks owned by some entity; C++ has a trademark policy, but it doesn't seem to have any restrictions regarding uses of the name that don't imply direct affiliation.
samatman 2y ago
Looking forward to the Crab language, with its excellent package management system, baggage.
- pezezin 2y ago
  Crab was a tantrum that, as expected, went nowhere. Why people play this silly games is something that I will never understand.
hvenev 2y ago
The part of the policy about distributing modified versions of the Rust compiler seems interesting: > Publicly distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language, compiler, or the Cargo package manager, provided that the modifications are limited to: > - code adjustments for the purpose of porting to a different platform, architecture, or system, or integrating the software with the packaging system of that platform It looks like distributing a modified version with any change that isn't related to compatibility with a different platform/architecture/system is not allowed. This would probably make almost all GitHub forks of Rust non-compliant.
- tredre3 2y ago
  I don't think we can argue in good faith that those forks are publicly distributing a modified version of the rust programming language, unless they actually publish releases.
  - hvenev 2y ago
    I don't know, to me it just seems like a plausible interpretation: - In GitHub, forks of public repositories are themselves public repositories. - GitHub repositories can be cloned, which is a form of distribution. - Therefore any fork that implements, for example, a change to the programming language itself, but still uses the name "Rust", is distributing a modified version of the programming language in a manner that is not allowed. I sincerely hope that this is not the interpretation taken by the Rust Foundation, but I cannot know for sure. It seems very open to selective enforcement.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      It's an argument a lawyer could make in court with a straight face. But that's not the same as an argument likely to win in court. The fundamental purpose of trademark is protecting commercial purity of a product; a GitHub fork whose relation to the original is pretty clearly stated and isn't trying to present itself as a viable alternative to the original is just unlikely to be seen as in the purview of trademark protection in the first place. Arguing that it's covered because it's distribution requires chaining through a few overly literal definitions to achieve that result, and that isn't likely to be winning argument against a gut instinct of "no, it's just not."
hyperman1 2y ago
What I am missing here is something like the Java TCK or ISO C: You can call this a compiler that implements the rust language iff it adheres to this specification and passes this suite of test. I really want to see things like a gcc rust be viable, even in a hypothetical universe where the rust foundation would do everything to thwart their existence (to be clear: I am not saying they are).
- nindalf 2y ago
  No one is thwarting anything. You want a GCC implementation of Rust? Check out this blog post published on the official Rust blog 3 days ago - gccrs: An alternative compiler for Rust (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/11/07/gccrs-an-alternative-compiler-for-rust.html https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/11/07/gccrs-an-alternative-c...). They are perfectly welcome to create this alternate compiler.
goldsteinq 2y ago
The phrasing around events is especially weird given that “non-commercial” would only imply “free to attend” in some sort of communist utopia where venues, catering, transfer and other stuff you need to actually host an event is free. The only kind of event this policy allows without an explicit approval is “get a beer with friends and talk about Rust”, and only if the price of the beer doesn’t count.

> The crates prefixes "rust-" and "cargo-" are no longer reserved to the Rust Project. Gosh they really should have used namespaces, huh.

melony 2y ago
There's nothing stopping them from just adding the feature like npm.
- dathinab 2y ago
  There are plans to add namespaces AFIK, they are just quite early stage. Through for a long time (part of rust developers) haven't been very happy with the idea. a stuff like `abcde/bar` vs. `abcbe/bar` are a total pain. But there where two points which pushed things in the direction of having them. 1) Differentiating between 1st and 3rd party extensions of a project (e.g. is actix-XXXX "blessed" by actix or not) 2) companies want this for a bunch of reasons.
  - sieabahlpark 2y ago
    [dead]

nindalf 2y ago

This subject is a touchy one because it usually attracts a lot of people who are upset because they think they’ve lost something they had. A lot of those comments start with “I’m not a lawyer but …” Then all of these upset people writing angry comments creates an impression of drama. Then reaction streamers on YouTube read these comments out and get their viewers riled up over a non issue. That’s when the real drama starts. I’d urge people to remember that this policy is very similar to the Python Foundation. If Rust is doomed to be only as successful as Python that’s not a terrible outcome.

jchw 2y ago
Oh, Rust will definitely not fail because of trademark policies like this, anymore than Python succeeded because of trademark policies. In fact I think it's literally the opposite; seeing policies like this being set up is a sign that the project is wildly successful. I suspect Guido van Rossum was not worried about uses of the non-existent Python trademark in the late 80s. The Rust foundation would have a hard time destroying Rust's momentum even if they wanted to.
- nindalf 2y ago
  You’ve misread my comment. I definitely think this policy is a step in the right direction. My reference to python is a response to people claiming that rust will fail because of this trademark policy. If Python didn’t fail because of their similar policy, then Rust won’t either.
  - jchw 2y ago
    I didn't misread your comment: I'm not really concerned with whether or not the policy is considered a step in the right direction or not, just suggesting that it really doesn't matter at all to the success or failure of Rust. Furthermore, Python is a pretty bad example. The Python Software Foundation has had multiple high-profile instances of reasonable outcry. See: DjangoCon Africa, or the banning of Tim Peters. The Python Software Foundation exists because of the tremendous success of Python, not because of the tremendous success of their policies.
    - nindalf 2y ago
      Yeah I read your top level comment complaining about a “power grab”. You’re welcome to get worked up over a non issue. I won’t spend any time convincing you otherwise.
      - jchw 2y ago
        Convince me of what? What's the point of a reply like this?

jchw 2y ago

Most interesting bit to me is this. > Using the Rust trademarks for social and small non-profit events like meetups, tutorials, and the like is allowed for events that are free to attend. Your materials for the event must not imply that the event is officially endorsed or run by the Rust Project or Rust Foundation unless you have written permission. For commercial events (including sponsored ones), please check in with us. It sort of reminds me of Nintendo's awkward rules for community-ran tournaments of their games (which, well, pretty much make it impossible to do sustainably.) I see their point (someone might mistake something called e.g. "New York Rust Conference" for being official) but using trademark to enforce rules on unofficial events is an interesting maneuver that seems to me to be relatively recent. Go's trademark policy has a similar looking rule: > The Go word mark may be used referentially in events, community groups, or other gatherings related to the programming language, but it may not be used in a manner that implies official status or endorsement. At this point, it sounds more permissive: seems like it blanket allows uses to just refer to it if it's clear that it's not official. > [...] Events and community groups may be subject to the Go programming language’s Code of Conduct, and violations of the Code of Conduct may be deemed incompatible with use of the Go Trademarks. But then there's this, which seems to imply that your ability to use the Go trademark in reference to Go in a way that doesn't make your event sound official still obligates you to adhere to their Code of Conduct when conducting your event. So it seems like this is a new part of the metagame. I've not paid attention to policies like these. Could someone with more experience help me understand the context here? Specifically: - Is this a new tactic, at least in terms of open source communities? It seems like it to me. In ~2010 it felt like open source was more fork-happy, ad-hoc and less governance-oriented, but now every other project has corporate backing, multiple committees, Code of Conducts, etc. Is the use of trademark and brand rules to exercise some control over the ecosystem new? Did someone pioneer it? - Also, is there an inspiration for this tactic? e.g. is it inspired by a specific incident or state of affairs? Have these rules actually ever been used to do anything? I'm guessing the real answer is that they just don't want to explicitly give up the ability to exercise these rules, but I'm not sure and I don't know how to look. Either way, it's interesting to see committees and foundations going for these sorts of power grabs. It doesn't look like this is the case for all programming languages which have trademarks owned by some entity; C++ has a trademark policy, but it doesn't seem to have any restrictions regarding uses of the name that don't imply direct affiliation.

samatman 2y ago

Looking forward to the Crab language, with its excellent package management system, baggage.

pezezin 2y ago
Crab was a tantrum that, as expected, went nowhere. Why people play this silly games is something that I will never understand.

hvenev 2y ago

The part of the policy about distributing modified versions of the Rust compiler seems interesting: > Publicly distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language, compiler, or the Cargo package manager, provided that the modifications are limited to: > - code adjustments for the purpose of porting to a different platform, architecture, or system, or integrating the software with the packaging system of that platform It looks like distributing a modified version with any change that isn't related to compatibility with a different platform/architecture/system is not allowed. This would probably make almost all GitHub forks of Rust non-compliant.

tredre3 2y ago
I don't think we can argue in good faith that those forks are publicly distributing a modified version of the rust programming language, unless they actually publish releases.
- hvenev 2y ago
  I don't know, to me it just seems like a plausible interpretation: - In GitHub, forks of public repositories are themselves public repositories. - GitHub repositories can be cloned, which is a form of distribution. - Therefore any fork that implements, for example, a change to the programming language itself, but still uses the name "Rust", is distributing a modified version of the programming language in a manner that is not allowed. I sincerely hope that this is not the interpretation taken by the Rust Foundation, but I cannot know for sure. It seems very open to selective enforcement.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    It's an argument a lawyer could make in court with a straight face. But that's not the same as an argument likely to win in court. The fundamental purpose of trademark is protecting commercial purity of a product; a GitHub fork whose relation to the original is pretty clearly stated and isn't trying to present itself as a viable alternative to the original is just unlikely to be seen as in the purview of trademark protection in the first place. Arguing that it's covered because it's distribution requires chaining through a few overly literal definitions to achieve that result, and that isn't likely to be winning argument against a gut instinct of "no, it's just not."

hyperman1 2y ago

What I am missing here is something like the Java TCK or ISO C: You can call this a compiler that implements the rust language iff it adheres to this specification and passes this suite of test. I really want to see things like a gcc rust be viable, even in a hypothetical universe where the rust foundation would do everything to thwart their existence (to be clear: I am not saying they are).

nindalf 2y ago
No one is thwarting anything. You want a GCC implementation of Rust? Check out this blog post published on the official Rust blog 3 days ago - gccrs: An alternative compiler for Rust (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/11/07/gccrs-an-alternative-compiler-for-rust.html https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/11/07/gccrs-an-alternative-c...). They are perfectly welcome to create this alternate compiler.

goldsteinq 2y ago

The phrasing around events is especially weird given that “non-commercial” would only imply “free to attend” in some sort of communist utopia where venues, catering, transfer and other stuff you need to actually host an event is free. The only kind of event this policy allows without an explicit approval is “get a beer with friends and talk about Rust”, and only if the price of the beer doesn’t count.