Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
en:philosophy:rust_trademark [2024/11/22 22:47] throgh [What are the issues?] |
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 " | In short, the **Rust Foundation won't be happy with us applying patches and modifications** to their trademarked language **without " | ||
| - | Furthermore Rust has a very strict point when it comes to modified versions distributed and shared. To quote their points from their own [[https:// | + | 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. |
| - | + | ||
| - | < | + | |
| - | (...) | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Uses that require explicit approval | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | * Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language, compiler, or the Cargo package | + | |
| - | manager with modifications other than those permitted above and calling it Rust or Cargo requires | + | |
| - | explicit, written permission from the Rust Foundation. We will usually allow these uses as long as the | + | |
| - | modifications are (1) relatively small and (2) very clearly communicated to end-users. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | (...) | + | |
| - | </ | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | So to underline the issue: | + | |
| 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: |
| ===== Big Picture ===== | ===== Big Picture ===== | ||