Re: Rust trademark policy

[Bone Baboon]

Bone Baboon writes:

This:

>
> ```
> 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
> trademarks.

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.

<https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-welcomes-the-rust-foundation/>
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
> <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53287#issuecomment-414472372>
> "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
> 2).
> * 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.
<https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/rust.scm>
<https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/tree/master/srcpkgs/rust/patches>

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
requires.