Rust Is Dead to Me
gavinhoward.com
gavinhoward.com
Here's a fantastic video on the controversy: https://youtu.be/gutR_LNoZw0
I can't believe this petty, in-group absurdity. It's Home Owners Association-level bullshit the likes of which I've never seen before in the software community.
They've created thousands of ways you can't create Rust events or even associate yourself with the language. It's 100% exclusionary and seems to go well beyond trademark protection.
The language doesn't belong to them.
I'm half minded to fork Rust and call it "Crust" or "Crab Language".
Please do. I'll use it.
The article starts with the desire to attend Rust conferences while strapped with firepower. Unfortunately, that's a loaded (ha) topic, which I'd guess will alienate maybe half the readers of the article, before they learn that there's things in the draft that do bother them...
Just flipping around the draft, I see things like this:
> 5.1.2 Websites
> You may use the Word Marks and Logos, but not the Trade Dress, on your webpage to show your support for the Project as long as:
I think anyone will use these terms and senses of "Rust", "Cargo", and "Clippy" on Web pages for most whatever purposes they want, not only to "show [their] support for the Project".
There's more in the draft like that.
At first glance, this Rust Trademark Policy looks like it could function like a treaty amongst a handful of megacorps. It could also be used to carve out of a fiefdom.
Rust is clearly designed for systems programmers. Systems programmers learn to be savvy about standards and vendor dependencies, and (when they have a choice) to weigh what they invest in.
Personally, I'm all for open standards, building solid systems, and "defending the Internet". I don't yet know what to make of this document.
Java logo and mark guidelines (also cf. javascript/ECMAScript, mysql): https://www.oracle.com/legal/trademarks.html https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/java-licensing-logo-guide...
Google's attempt to trademark Go: https://trademarks.justia.com/881/00/go-88100955.html
Python trademark usage guidelines: https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
Perl trademark usage guidelines: https://www.perlfoundation.org/trademarks.html
Ruby is a counterexample!: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/logo/
PHP seems to be a counterexample!: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/logo/
PostgreSQL: https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/trademarks/
Linux: https://lmi.linuxfoundation.org/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage
there are many more, but you get the idea
I know a couple streamers/youtubers have made a big fuss about this (idk about actual developer sentiment), but I don't see why this situation is anything exceptional or to be worried about.
The more obvious reason is that you have a couple loud voices who don't know what they're talking about and see that these actions actually either do little harm or even benefit the community (regarding the latter, e.g. making it obvious when a couple blessed and vetted, officially supported high-quality resources are being provided).
So I am not too surprised by what Rust has been doing. I definitely don't like it, but whatever, there's enough fights out there to choose from, and Rust's trademark policy is not one I'm picking.
Either way, I think the situations are a bit different; naming libraries "$langname-foo" or variations thereof is common in many languages; and I don't think anyone is really confused by this. Attempting to ban the usage of $langname in package and domain names is unheard of AFAIK. Ruby on Rails, godoc.org, gobyexample.com, and many others would be disallowed under this policy.
And as much as I disagree with the author's stance on guns, putting it in a Trademark policy seems ... weird.
"I am running an event for which I am charging attendees for tickets. Can I use the Rust Logo on my promotional materials?
If your event is for-profit, you will need approval to use the Rust name or Logo. If you are simply covering costs and the event is non-profit, you may use the Rust name or Logo as long as it is clear that the event is not endorsed by the Rust Foundation. You are free to use Ferris the crab without permission."
A quick google: "simply because the use of another’s trademark is unauthorized by the trademark owner does not make it an infringing use" https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications...
So even the logo doesn't grant quite that level of control.
Basically someone needs to get over themselves.
Wow. "Good taste". No rusty dildoes?
If it’s a dangerous place, why do you even go? And if it’s not, why the hell would you even need an firearm?
I don’t care if you have a permit or not, just the mentality of “I’m going to defend my wife and myself” sounds nuts to anyone not in the states.
IMHO that was the only statement from the rust foundation that I could relate to: it makes feel safer knowing that people like you won’t be able to bring guns to these events.
This means you can't legally have a conference in the state of Georgia on any public property (including universities). The state of Georgia requires venue and event organizers to allow firearms in public, state owned, or university locations.
We recently had Music Midtown, one our biggest music festivals with decades of rich history and major headliners, permanently shutter because they tried to prohibit guns and got sued.
These rules have unintended consequences. It's cute to try to be political, but this just excludes people.
If you want to bring a weapon to my conference, you are not welcome.
The only reason they want to do any of this is because their needs (in an abstract sense) are not being met. Because the system is inadequate at addressing everyone's needs, regardless of belief or party affiliation.
This is mimetic tribalism, where the players think that their tribe can better meet their needs and insecurities. Guns aren't even what this is about.
In any case, I'm annoyed that the Rust Foundation finds it worth their time to play these games.
Guns go off unintentionally. People react before properly assessing a situation. Someone dead, on the floor, riddled with bullets is not an acceptable outcome no matter the situation that led up to it. Not in any event I organize.
If you feel unsafe because you can't bring your gun, then don't come. You're not welcome.
By visibly signalling "no guns", you're just drawing attention to yourself.
Nobody was going to bring a gun to your event. Those kinds of people likely aren't interested in your event to begin with as it's a different demographic.
By advertising that guns aren't welcome, you just created drama and an intense desire for people that were never interested in the first place to suddenly find themselves involved and to want to deliberately break your rules.
You just created a situation.
In any case, I use Rust for most of my engineering work these days. I just want to have Rust conferences and meetups in my home town of Atlanta. I don't want drama.
I really think the Rust Foundation is acting childish. They should be the bigger party. They're literally rubbing this issue in everyone's face for no reason, and if you read the blog posts or watch the videos - this isn't even limited to guns. They're preventing all sorts of Rust activities. You can't have a "Rust and Anime" meetup or a "Rust Robotics" meetup.
I'm pretty sure from a legal standpoint the Rust Foundation has just prevented Rust meetups on the Georgia Tech campus. That's really smooth as we've had meetups there up to this point.
You're quite hung up on guns but it's not about guns it's about anything that's none of your business.
I think religion and religious thinking and ideas are more dangerous than any guns. Let's count the bodies and the misery if you th8nk that was a silly statement. Do I get to thow an event about a software programming language and have an AI scan everyone's internet footprint and exclude anyone that my AI determines is in any way religious? Or just assume we have thought scanning tech that can just show it as directly as frisking someone for a gun. Do I get to do that?
Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.
I suppose it must be reasonable to bar anyone who knows how to lock doors and start fires, or mix cleaning supplies. Assume we had an equivant way to scan for it like a metal detector or a frisking.
If you disagree that potential is a good enough justification, would you agree that private citizens should be able to own nuclear bombs? If not, why? If you do think citizens owning nuclear bombs is reasonable, I don't think we will find common ground.
> Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.
Try attending a conference openly carrying a bucket of arsenic or a bottle of anthrax. Or just a jerrycan with gasoline and some matches. Or wearing a bomb vest and wielding a machete. I like to imagine you will be sent away. It's not like guns are unfairly targeted here.
When those other methods of murdering people are as common in the death-statistics as firearms (such as the "killing spree by a muscular martial artist" one you propose), perhaps we should worry about them more. But they are not, so banning guns is the most logical step to increase safety.
True, carrying a pail of nerve gas, or even merely gasoline, somewhere out of context will be prevented generally for it's mere potential, but there are several things about that:
It was a remarkable out of context event, not someone merely existing as they do all day every day, where their weapon is a part of them like their wallet or their knowledge.
You don't have to carry anything large that is detectable without a rather invasive search which you cannot perform outside of maybe North Korea.
You don't have to carry anything at all. The danger is all in the will and abilities of any individual.
Saying nuclear bomb is a form of Godwin's law. Merely saying it at all exposes that one is not arguing from meaningful thought or data but pure hyperbole and emotion.
> You just created a situation.
That sounds borderline victim blaming.
Someone decides that their conference is safer without guns, advertises to not bring guns as a requirement for entrance and now it's their fault for creating a situation. It doesn't make sense. Because the opposite: ban guns and don't advertise it, would just create another situation when someone came with a gun...
The gun nuts create a situation, they can choose to not bring a gun or not go to the event, they choose to be overly dramatic about it or not.
Sounds absolutely batshit insane to many of us in the states too.
In almost every example here you could decide that what Rust is saying is not unreasonable.
But in almost every case you could just as easily come to the conclusion he does, because his logic does hold.
(I don't mean the defend my wife & kids from terrorists at the software conference stuff is logical, we can agree that that is goofy, and that any event organizer or property owner probably (not a lawyer) has the same right to say that as they have to say "no shoes no shirt no service". But even then, that right is the event organizer's and the property owners, not the Rust foundation's unless they happen to directly be the one's throwing the event.
I would say what Rust is trying to do is more normal than reasonable. It's not uncommon at all, but that doesn't absolve it of critique.
And his point about intent is valid. The fact it's a draft and the purpose of a draft is exactly to discover objections like these, and may be revised before it's ratified, doesn't change what they want, which tells you the direction of all future updates, and the bias when judging any disputes.
Without that one wacky element which has nothing to do with Rust anyway (any more than any other wacky belief like in gods), I see no problem with this assertion of the character of whoever contributed to and approves of this draft, based on this consistently themed collection of points.
Have you considered the non-black-and-white possibility that it's unknown whether danger will present itself at the conference? No one ever went to a school or just about anywhere else outside a war zone expecting to get shot up or otherwise attacked and possibly murdered, and yet . . . .
well, apparently not well known to you. The danger is criminals with guns. Law-abiding people carry guns everyday and demonstrably present no significant additional threat to the public. The thesis that law-abiding people could suddenly become dangerous gun criminals at a Rust event simply because they possess a firearm seems unsupportable.
Apparently the Rust Foundation wants us to accept the premise that lawfully armed people are intrinsically dangerous to fellow Rust enthusiasts, doubly so if they dissent.
I’d like to know what is it about Rust that makes lawful behavior and public dissent over Rust foundation dicta so hazardous...? Can someone address this directly?
If a state goes above and beyond to force guns in unrelated events, then good for the Rust foundation to go above and beyond on keeping their attendees safe.
I have no idea what mental gymnastics you make to think forcing event organizations to allow guns is not intrusive but the opposite is.
I'm sure they don't care if attendees carry weapons outside of the conference, they're not saying gun owners are not licensed to use rust or anything.
I don't have anything against a rule about not carrying weapons... but why mention it in a trademark draft?
I am sure we both can think about a lot of things that "have no place at a programming language conference", but surprisingly these are not included in that draft. Why?
Rly. Why should petty tyranny or totalitarianism have a seat at a programming language conference?
This is crazy, as a European who lived in a peaceful world all my life I believe it should be illegal to conceal any deadly weapon. A person who does that is danger to everybody.
I understand the right for people protecting their own home and being able to protest violently against their government in a need, but going to a conference is none of these.
There are pepper sprays that are good for self defence without being able to kill people, why not use those?
Of course, guns have similar drawbacks. Adrenaline is fascinating stuff.
Mind you, I’m thinking of hunting rifles and revolvers generally, not assault rifles.
So far, neither has harmed (major or minor) me or my extended family in any way. And I live within a few miles of places where people regularly hunt; in a deep red state with a long history of hunting and trapping and carrying firearms (open, concealed, and in vehicles).
Which one has come closer to being dangerous to me and mine? A bear. I've been at more risk of being mauled by a bear (driving down a road on an ATV and ending up between a mama and her cub) than being shot (haven't noticed a gun being pointed in my direction, no mass shootings within several hundred miles of my home).
And bears, if you're near their territory, are damned dangerous. They're wild animals who love to come into our places because we have free food (our trash). Bear spray, a long touted alternative, doesn't work on an angry bear. It doesn't even always work on an angry human.
> Can you conceive of a way to live in proximity to these animals without a firearm?
Not without sacrificing lives or property. Wild animals don't respect fences and property lines. And they regularly threaten people, pets, and livestock.
Additionally, IMO, a bullet is kinder than poison (which is what the Bureau of Wildlife Management uses).
> Would our country be better off if the average citizen did not have such easy access to guns & ammunition?
Hunting rifles and revolvers (as I called out in my original message)? I don't believe so. And my position is based on US history, where we've had access to these kinds of firearms for centuries.
Assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols? An unambiguous yes.
Roughly half the voters in America, which is why it's not going to change any time soon.
Quote:
>Every time a gun in the home was used in self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were >four unintentional shootings, >seven criminal assaults or homicides, >and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
The data does not support that having a gun makes you safer
As for trademark control, well, that's the way the world is. "Rust" is reserved for official Rust products. If youhave an issue with copyrights and stuff, go vote accordingly, but Rust doesn't have much of a choice unless they want to let "Rust" go public domain and let any and every one use it w/o any control.
And that would be bad because....?
This is an open-source programming language, not a business. IMHO it shouldn't even be trademarked.
Edit: you posted a whole bunch of flamewar comments. Can you please not do that on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are, or how provocative something in an article is or you feel it is? We're trying for a different kind of conversation here.
Guns were banned at an NRA conference. That's their own opinion on guns and gun carriers. Stop killing kids.
We have to ban accounts that do that, and I don't want to ban you so I'm asking you not to do it again.