The Rust Foundation goes to war against people using the word “Rust” | Hacker News Reader

The Rust Foundation goes to war against people using the word “Rust”

lunduke.substack.com

48 pointschungy23 comments

I wish people would stop treating Bryan Lunduke like he's still an authority. He's gotten so into being the "Linux Sucks" guy that he's slowly turned into a source for FUD in the FOSS community. For instance, he goes so far out of his way to mention that this is a draft for comment the word doesn't even appear in the article. Which is odd because he has plenty of words speculating about a license fee that isn't mentioned.

Couldn't makee this stuff up

  “We will consider requests to use the
  [word “Rust” within a conference] on a
  case by case basis, but at a minimum,
  would expect events and conferences
  using the [word “Rust”] to be
  non-profit-making, focused on discussion
  of, and education on, Rust software,
  prohibit the carrying of firearms,
  comply with local health regulations,
  and have a robust Code of Conduct.”

Somehow I doubt the SQLite CoC would satisfy these guys. Some Codes of Conduct are more "robust" than others I guess.

Can someone with more context explain why it looks like the Rust Foundation is shooting themselves in the foot? Is there an angle to this that I am missing?

If you ask lawyers to give you the most permissive trademark policy that's still enforceable, this is what you get. Unfortunately what lawyers consider to be extremely permissive, hackers see as fatally authoritarian. It's not clear whether there's any room for compromise.

Larry Wall did it fine with Perl.

Some context was given here: https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/04/12/trademark-...

This isn't "The Rust Foundation went and Did It". AFAIK it's more like "The Project has wanted to change the trademark policy for a while (My understanding is "It's currently completely legally ambiguous despite seemingly being permissive, so it's A Problem"), and one of the explicit reasons the Rust Foundation was created was to deal with the Trademark Problem. The Project (Or at least, project leadership) were very involved in drafting the current draft policy". If project members are finding issues with the policy (And not just bugs/gotchas like "We didn't realize this would ban X crates, we're gonna fix that ASAP", but with some of the explicit goals of the Policy like what it says of commercial activities in general), then that's just showing how the current structure of The Rust Project is far from ideal. And that's generally widely known.

So is the Rust Foundation trying to pivot to profit from license fees and merchandicing?

I do not understand their motivations here.

If these actions go forward, it could negatively impact Rust adoption and discourage the community.

If the Rust Foundation goes forward and the community disagrees what should the response be?

https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ has similar language (but with defined parameters) . I just read the linked (rust tm) doc. It is still in the draft phase and there are links for community comment and feedback.

In other words (at this stage) it doesn't look like they're trying to encumber the general use of the word _rust_ or the act of referring to the language by its given name.

> [S]tating accurately that software is written in the Python programming language, that it is compatible with the Python programming language, or that it contains the Python programming language, is always allowed. In those cases, you may use the word "Python" or the unaltered logos to indicate this, without our prior approval. This is true both for non-commercial and commercial uses.... This clause overrides other clauses of this policy.

I don't think they're that similar. Python is fairly permissive about use of its trademark in a way that won't cause dilution.

In addition to the fact that Python is less strident about use of the term "Python," Python is also explicitly a "Benevolent Dictator For Life" language. Rust, on the other hand, seems to try to position itself as entirely open, despite all of the heavy-handed restrictive steps it takes.

Nah. Python quit the BDFL scene when Guido stepped down. My point was simply that there are general commonalities between the two and that the linked rust document is in the early draft phase.

Hey, they might fuck it up, but as of today, they have not.

Even the Rust trademark policy as it exists now is significantly more restrictive than the Python trademark policy.

I'm assuming that this is actually satire, if a bit long-winded. I had a good laugh, anyhow.

Example: 'That’s right. Want to sell stickers with “Rust” on it? T-Shirts? Posters? No sir.'

Realistically, if you depict an old railway spike, nobody will come after you. But if you are profiting off someone else's reputation (via logos, etc), that's a problem; I don't see why that shouldn't be restricted.

I expect that a lot of the motivation for this is to have the ability to close down various kinds of bad actors (not just ankle-biter freeloading with amusement park midway merch). Rust is now big enough and important enough that I see this as a valid concern.

If someone ever builds a Linux distro with Rust, it should be called "Stainless steel" if it uses at least 11% Chromium in it

Looks like D&D will be in trouble with both Rust™ and Monster™.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17001-rust-monster

https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/monster-energy-takes-in...

Rust on your car has not been reviewed, endorsed, or approved of by the Rust Foundation.

Fork it and call it {Fe2O3·nH2O, FeO(OH), Fe(OH)3}™, search engines will love the new name

Trademarks do not cover all uses of a word. They only cover uses that are in one field, that can confuse an idiot in a hurry.

Here's a blogpost from the Rust language blog, that might clear up some things:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/04/12/trademark-...

There's a feedback form (this is just a draft after all), so please do leave your feedback!

> The public comment period for the Rust Trademark Policy will close on April 16th at 5 PM PDT.

And it was created on the 1st of April then, right?

RustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRust

Rust? as in the same Rust, that all the Rust-aceans use? Rust seems like it has a lot of Rust fans, that enjoy using Rust, and espousing the value of Rust for programming.

RustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRustRust

RUST

Can you not do that on HN? What are you, 5?

its an absolutely asinine comment, to go with an asinine circumstance. so i take it you get the feeling that policies, and even anecdotes like OP create. +1 for the reply

That's why you don't have neither Java or Rust under Hyperbola GNU/Linux except if they are under the GCC umbrella as GccGo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com