HyperWiki

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
en:philosophy:rust_trademark [2024/01/14 23:05]
throgh [But including Perl and / or Python, while both having also a strong trademark?] 		en:philosophy:rust_trademark [2024/11/22 23:21] (current)
throgh [What are the issues?]
Line 18: Line 18:
 In short, the **Rust Foundation won't be happy with us applying patches and modifications** to their trademarked language **without "explicit approval", so it is a freedom issue**. We should not have to ask for modifications. For further references, [[https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93157|there is a report in Rust about those trademark restrictions]] and [[https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53287#issuecomment-414472372|Niko's response (one of the members of the Rust Legal Team)]]. In short, the **Rust Foundation won't be happy with us applying patches and modifications** to their trademarked language **without "explicit approval", so it is a freedom issue**. We should not have to ask for modifications. For further references, [[https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93157|there is a report in Rust about those trademark restrictions]] and [[https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53287#issuecomment-414472372|Niko's response (one of the members of the Rust Legal Team)]].
  
-Furthermore Rust has a very strict point when it comes to modified versions distributed and shared. To quote their points from their own [[https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/#uses-that-do-not-require-explicit-approval|media guide]]: +A free and libre oriented system cannot provide a package-manager besides its own to preserve the autonomy of the free system itself. What the users are doing is their own decision, but they should be always able to assure a consistent free and libre oriented system outside their own decisions that they are responsible for. If we would remove **Cargo**, we would need to ask for permission when we call the package **Rust**. And if we remove the package-manager (**Cargo**) we also create a not useful result as **Rust** depends on it fully when building. If we add needed dependencies for software based on **Rust**, we enlarge the number of our packages provided.
- +
-<code> +
-(...) +
- +
-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; or +
-  * fixing local paths; or +
-  * adding patches that have been made available upstream and accepted, or submitted upstream  +
-and not yet rejected (but you must remove either the patch or the trademark once the patch has been been rejected). +
- +
-(...) +
-</code>+
  
 To summarize the issues: To summarize the issues:
Line 39: Line 24:
   * demands to ask for allowing modifications   * demands to ask for allowing modifications
   * complex structures   * complex structures
-  * mandatory package-manager for build+  * mandatory package-manager for building
   * packages downloaded at build-time can be non-free, so keeping that outside makes the whole build-system and infrastructure even more complex   * packages downloaded at build-time can be non-free, so keeping that outside makes the whole build-system and infrastructure even more complex
  
-The listing above only shows the major points, furthermore the Rust-Foundation is overreacting in our perspective with their trademarked language and demands handlings violating in fact free, libre software as it is based most on ethics and moral decisions as important, not what possible legal issues could be there.+The listing above only shows the major points, furthermore the Rust-Foundation is overreacting in our perspective with their trademarked language and demands handlings violating in fact free, libre software as it is based most on ethics and moral decisions as important, not what possible legal issues could be there. So to conclude:  We cannot include **Rust** as it is not compliant with the elementary direction Hyperbola is oriented on.
 ===== Big Picture ===== ===== Big Picture =====
  
Line 58: Line 43:
  
 The list can be enhanced for sure and clear to say that Rust is not only some sideload toolchain. As the buzzword "memory safety" is being in usage more and more projects get on this. Yes, the rewrite of GNU coreutils is not the main project. But who says exactly that this won't be the near future? As all the other points in this article were long before described, not solved and just accepted. It is a bad and foul compromise, endangering freedom of choice, user freedom for sure and also the freedom for system-distributions and operating-systems like Hyperbola. The list can be enhanced for sure and clear to say that Rust is not only some sideload toolchain. As the buzzword "memory safety" is being in usage more and more projects get on this. Yes, the rewrite of GNU coreutils is not the main project. But who says exactly that this won't be the near future? As all the other points in this article were long before described, not solved and just accepted. It is a bad and foul compromise, endangering freedom of choice, user freedom for sure and also the freedom for system-distributions and operating-systems like Hyperbola.
 +
 +It should be also mentioned that the **Rust Foundation** has a comparable [[https://foundation.rust-lang.org/members/|members-list ]] like the [[https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members|Linux Foundation]]. Speaking about a "community" is therefore not fitting in any way as those members are just companies and corporations. Neither Rust nor Linux are real [[en:philosophy:community_software|community-oriented software]] and the FSF has failed to fork the kernel as GNU/Linux-libre for a long time now. That's the point for Hyperbola to become independent in a whole.
 ===== Solutions ===== ===== Solutions =====
   * **Rebranding** the entire language to avoid the trademark restriction. Such as [[https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/|IceCat]] was made to replace Firefox and [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/iceweasel-uxp|Iceweasel-UXP]] to replace Basilisk; however it is a programming language, not a browser. **A rebranded version of Rust   * **Rebranding** the entire language to avoid the trademark restriction. Such as [[https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/|IceCat]] was made to replace Firefox and [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/iceweasel-uxp|Iceweasel-UXP]] to replace Basilisk; however it is a programming language, not a browser. **A rebranded version of Rust
Line 90: Line 77:
 (...) (...)
  
-All trademarks are subject to "nominative use rules" that allow use of the trademark to name the  +Use of the word "Python" when redistributing the Python programming language as part of a freely  
-trademarked entity in a way that is minimal and does not imply a sponsorship relationship with the  +distributed application -- Allowed. If the standard version of the Python programming language is  
-trademark holder.  +modified, this should be clearly indicated. For commercial distributions, contact the PSF for permission if  
- +your use is not covered by the nominative use rules described in the section "Uses that Never Require  
-As such, stating accurately that software is written in the Python programming language, that it is  +Approval" above.
-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. However, if you have any doubts about your intended  +
-use of the trademarks, please contact the PSF Trademarks Committee.+
  
 (...) (...)