5 ms·

The part of the policy about distributing modified versions of the Rust compiler seems interesting: > Publicly distributing a modified version of the Rust prog

by hvenev 2y ago

The part of the policy about distributing modified versions of the Rust compiler seems interesting: > Publicly 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 It looks like distributing a modified version with any change that isn't related to compatibility with a different platform/architecture/system is not allowed. This would probably make almost all GitHub forks of Rust non-compliant.

tredre3 2y ago
I don't think we can argue in good faith that those forks are publicly distributing a modified version of the rust programming language, unless they actually publish releases.
- hvenev 2y ago
  I don't know, to me it just seems like a plausible interpretation: - In GitHub, forks of public repositories are themselves public repositories. - GitHub repositories can be cloned, which is a form of distribution. - Therefore any fork that implements, for example, a change to the programming language itself, but still uses the name "Rust", is distributing a modified version of the programming language in a manner that is not allowed. I sincerely hope that this is not the interpretation taken by the Rust Foundation, but I cannot know for sure. It seems very open to selective enforcement.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    It's an argument a lawyer could make in court with a straight face. But that's not the same as an argument likely to win in court. The fundamental purpose of trademark is protecting commercial purity of a product; a GitHub fork whose relation to the original is pretty clearly stated and isn't trying to present itself as a viable alternative to the original is just unlikely to be seen as in the purview of trademark protection in the first place. Arguing that it's covered because it's distribution requires chaining through a few overly literal definitions to achieve that result, and that isn't likely to be winning argument against a gut instinct of "no, it's just not."
    - sieabahlpark 2y ago
      [dead]
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  in good faith, no. Legally, yes. But legalities have its costs as well. is it worth it to go after some random student project with no stars on it? Absolutely not. I imagine that's the bulk of those github forks.
wongarsu 2y ago
The way I read it the intent is to ensure there is one sanctioned version of Rust, if you change the compiler to accept other syntax, different file types etc you have to call it by another name. You can still say that it's written in rust and compatible to rust, but you can't call it rust. A weaker version of that policy Firefox had for a while. Maybe the exact wording needs some refinement. Allowing repositories that are marked as forks for example.
- dathinab 2y ago
  > The way I read it the intent is to ensure there is one sanctioned version of Rus basically that Through it's very annoying that it needs refinement _again_ and _again_ every f* time they update the trademark policy. Like why - is there no exception for research (i.e. science) use, as long as explicitly labeled at such - public development forks which are used to prototype directions rust could go into, again if clearly labeled as such and not maintained as forks (through to be fair the line between a public experimental rust development fork and an early rust "full" fork are thin) - wrt. software compatibility allowance why is it limited to the "packaging system of that platform" can't I fork to idk. create compatibility with a code analysis tool, changes I then later want to upstream but first need to test so need to distribute to various people? and sure you will normally get written permission for all the cases above, just the chance that someone could abuse this preventing you from doing very reasonable thing is IMHO an issue. I really don't want to see a headline like "rust forbids <company> from creating a compatible code analysis tool because <some stupid issue>".
  - yuliyp 2y ago
    This is a trademark policy, not a copyright license (Rust is distributed under MIT and Apache licenses, which are quite liberal in what you are allowed to do). You're welcome to make changes and distribute the modified versions, but you do have to be clear to people that it's not Rust, but DathinabRust etc.
    - ClassyJacket 2y ago
      Rust? No, this is IronOxide™
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mjw1007 2y ago
Note that part is unchanged from the current trademark policy here: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/ https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-me... (Except the current policy says "Distributing" rather than "Publicly distributing".)

by hvenev 2y ago

tredre3 2y ago

I don't think we can argue in good faith that those forks are publicly distributing a modified version of the rust programming language, unless they actually publish releases.

hvenev 2y ago
I don't know, to me it just seems like a plausible interpretation: - In GitHub, forks of public repositories are themselves public repositories. - GitHub repositories can be cloned, which is a form of distribution. - Therefore any fork that implements, for example, a change to the programming language itself, but still uses the name "Rust", is distributing a modified version of the programming language in a manner that is not allowed. I sincerely hope that this is not the interpretation taken by the Rust Foundation, but I cannot know for sure. It seems very open to selective enforcement.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  It's an argument a lawyer could make in court with a straight face. But that's not the same as an argument likely to win in court. The fundamental purpose of trademark is protecting commercial purity of a product; a GitHub fork whose relation to the original is pretty clearly stated and isn't trying to present itself as a viable alternative to the original is just unlikely to be seen as in the purview of trademark protection in the first place. Arguing that it's covered because it's distribution requires chaining through a few overly literal definitions to achieve that result, and that isn't likely to be winning argument against a gut instinct of "no, it's just not."
  - sieabahlpark 2y ago
    [dead]
johnnyanmac 2y ago
in good faith, no. Legally, yes. But legalities have its costs as well. is it worth it to go after some random student project with no stars on it? Absolutely not. I imagine that's the bulk of those github forks.

wongarsu 2y ago

The way I read it the intent is to ensure there is one sanctioned version of Rust, if you change the compiler to accept other syntax, different file types etc you have to call it by another name. You can still say that it's written in rust and compatible to rust, but you can't call it rust. A weaker version of that policy Firefox had for a while. Maybe the exact wording needs some refinement. Allowing repositories that are marked as forks for example.

dathinab 2y ago
> The way I read it the intent is to ensure there is one sanctioned version of Rus basically that Through it's very annoying that it needs refinement _again_ and _again_ every f* time they update the trademark policy. Like why - is there no exception for research (i.e. science) use, as long as explicitly labeled at such - public development forks which are used to prototype directions rust could go into, again if clearly labeled as such and not maintained as forks (through to be fair the line between a public experimental rust development fork and an early rust "full" fork are thin) - wrt. software compatibility allowance why is it limited to the "packaging system of that platform" can't I fork to idk. create compatibility with a code analysis tool, changes I then later want to upstream but first need to test so need to distribute to various people? and sure you will normally get written permission for all the cases above, just the chance that someone could abuse this preventing you from doing very reasonable thing is IMHO an issue. I really don't want to see a headline like "rust forbids <company> from creating a compatible code analysis tool because <some stupid issue>".
- yuliyp 2y ago
  This is a trademark policy, not a copyright license (Rust is distributed under MIT and Apache licenses, which are quite liberal in what you are allowed to do). You're welcome to make changes and distribute the modified versions, but you do have to be clear to people that it's not Rust, but DathinabRust etc.
  - ClassyJacket 2y ago
    Rust? No, this is IronOxide™

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mjw1007 2y ago

Note that part is unchanged from the current trademark policy here: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/ https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-me... (Except the current policy says "Distributing" rather than "Publicly distributing".)