[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rust trademark policy
Re: Rust trademark policy
Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:00:19 -0700
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/68.10.0
bone-baboon: Thank you for posting this. It is officially on our radar, so the
licensing team will take a serious look at this issue. I don't know how
swiftly it will move, but you are welcome to ping me at any time for an
On 5/31/21 9:28 PM, Bone Baboon wrote:
> Bone Baboon writes:
>> The Rust programming language is an open source, community project
>> governed by a core team. It is also sponsored by the Mozilla Foundation
>> (“Mozilla”), which owns and protects the Rust and Cargo trademarks and
>> logos (the “Rust Trademarks”).
>> If you want to use these names or brands, please read the media guide.
>> Note that it says that the Mozilla Foundation owns the Rust and Cargo
> and this:
>> <https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide> says "This document is
>> not an official statement of Mozilla trademark policy, but serves to
>> clarify Mozilla’s trademark policy as it relates to Rust.".
> appear to be in need of updating.
> says "The Rust Foundation will be the home of the popular Rust
> programming language that began within Mozilla.".
> <https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-02-08-hello-world/> says
> "Mozilla, the original home of the Rust project, has transferred all
> trademark ... to the Rust Foundation.".
>> Is Rust not free software because of the Rust trademark policy?
> When asking about this question on the Freenode and Libera IRC networks
> it was suggested that I look at the "Rules about packaging and
> distribution details" section of
> <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html> which says:
> Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they
> don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions,
> or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it
> is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of
> the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications
> as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that
> they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are
> acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so
> you won't have trouble making a few more.
> Given the "Rules about packaging and distribution details" section it
> appears that this:
>> * The "Uses that require explicit approval" section says "Distributing
>> a modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo
>> package manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit,
>> written permission from the Rust core team.". This appears to
>> interfere with "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified
>> versions to others (freedom 3).".
> and this:
>> Niko said in
>> "You are correct that we intended the trademark to apply when
>> distributing a package or other binary called "Rust" -- and in
>> particular that if modifications are made, then we would expect a
>> trademark request". This appears to interfere with:
>> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom
>> * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>> (freedom 3).
> would not prevent Rust from being free software.
> However the trademark policy does appear to require one of two things
> for the distribution of Rust and Cargo with and without modifications:
> * Permission from the Rust Foundation
> * Renaming so than the Rust Foundation's trademarks are not used
> This is a broad sample of operating systems that are not renaming Rust
> when they redistribute copies or modified versions as the Rust trademark
> policy appears to require:
> * Arch
> ** <https://repology.org/projects/?search=rust&inrepo=arch>
> * Debian
> ** <https://repology.org/projects/?search=rust&inrepo=debian_stable>
> * Fedora
> ** <https://repology.org/projects/?search=rust&inrepo=fedora_34>
> * Gentoo
> ** <https://repology.org/projects/?search=rust&inrepo=gentoo>
> * Guix
> ** <https://guix.gnu.org/en/packages/rust-1.52.1/>
> * OpenBSD
> ** <https://repology.org/projects/?search=rust&inrepo=openbsd>
> * Parabola
> ** <https://repology.org/projects/?search=rust&inrepo=parabola>
> * Ubuntu
> ** <https://repology.org/projects/?search=rust&inrepo=ubuntu_21_04>
> * Void
> ** <https://repology.org/projects/?search=rust&inrepo=void_x86_64>
> Guix and Void for example distribute modified versions of Rust without
> changing it's name.
> Maybe these operating system have received permission from the Mozilla
> or Rust foundation to distribute copies or modified versions of Rust.
> People packaging Rust for these operating systems (many are volunteers)
> would likely check the Rust source code repository to see what licenses
> apply and check if those licenses are free libre open source licenses
> using resources from the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source
> Initiative. It seems unlikely that they would check the Rust media
> guide for further restriction. Even if they did check the Rust media
> guide it may not be clear what further restriction the trademark policy