4 ms·

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 commen

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?
johnnyanmac 2y ago
we're not on reddit. I see nothing like what you're talking about here. Like most legalese CYA, the rules sound fine as long as they don''t use it to copyright troll everything under the sun. So it's more on how/where Rust enforces this than on the rules themselves. Those who profit from drama will find drama no matter what, so their opinions aren't worth consideration.
- nindalf 2y ago
  Obviously I was talking about previous threads on this subject. Check out this one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35583089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35583089) which is summarised by the top comment > This whole thread went to hell. There's like 2-3 people that are really vested about this situation and have made posts, and articles elsewhere that make their viewpoints seem bigger. Also the biggest comment thread is about a gun rights tangent. GG. Are you convinced now? Or do you still stand by your "we're not on reddit"?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I apologize for missing a thread from 18 months ago. >Are you convinced now? Or do you still stand by your "we're not on reddit"? I still stand by it. Even taking that comment at face value it's saying that it's a matter of 2-3 people who fit my description of "they are incentivized to cause drama". I am a bit saddened that so many "took the bait" (the blog post that post links to really didn't offer much insight nor curiosity), but no forum will be perfect.
toast0 2y ago
Having a written, easily found, trademark policy is actually nice. Especially when it's reasonable. There's plenty of drama around, but I don't really see this kind of trademark policy sparking much. But, maybe I misunderestimate the drama seekers.

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?

johnnyanmac 2y ago

we're not on reddit. I see nothing like what you're talking about here. Like most legalese CYA, the rules sound fine as long as they don''t use it to copyright troll everything under the sun. So it's more on how/where Rust enforces this than on the rules themselves. Those who profit from drama will find drama no matter what, so their opinions aren't worth consideration.

nindalf 2y ago
Obviously I was talking about previous threads on this subject. Check out this one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35583089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35583089) which is summarised by the top comment > This whole thread went to hell. There's like 2-3 people that are really vested about this situation and have made posts, and articles elsewhere that make their viewpoints seem bigger. Also the biggest comment thread is about a gun rights tangent. GG. Are you convinced now? Or do you still stand by your "we're not on reddit"?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I apologize for missing a thread from 18 months ago. >Are you convinced now? Or do you still stand by your "we're not on reddit"? I still stand by it. Even taking that comment at face value it's saying that it's a matter of 2-3 people who fit my description of "they are incentivized to cause drama". I am a bit saddened that so many "took the bait" (the blog post that post links to really didn't offer much insight nor curiosity), but no forum will be perfect.

toast0 2y ago

Having a written, easily found, trademark policy is actually nice. Especially when it's reasonable. There's plenty of drama around, but I don't really see this kind of trademark policy sparking much. But, maybe I misunderestimate the drama seekers.