Am I the only one who feels like their stubborn insistence to not say which language they’re forking is just childish? What is this, Hogwarts?
I recognize that the whole argument is trademark law and controlling the name “Rust”, but someone having a trademark doesn’t mean that outsiders aren’t allowed to say or write the name.
Suggesting that this is the case, is exactly the kind of FUD they say they’re not after.
I did, and it says (in section 3.1): "The law [...] prohibits creating a 'likelihood of confusion' but allows for 'nominative use.' For example, you cannot say you are distributing the Rust compiler when what you are distributing differs from the version distributed by the Rust Project, because people would be confused [...] However, you can say you use and like the Rust software, that you participate in the Rust community, that you are providing an unmodified version of the Rust software, or that you wrote a manual describing how to develop software using Rust."
And in section 4.1.3: "You may use the Word Marks, but not the Logos, to truthfully describe the relationship between your software and ours. Our Marks should be used after a verb or preposition that describes the relationship between your software and ours. So you may say, for example, 'the Dungeness tool for the Rust compiler' but may not say 'the Dungeness Rust compiler,' which suggests that Dungeness is the source of the Rust compiler."
Yeah, that part is a little strange. They mention in section 4.1.4 that you must make clear that you're referring to the Rust language and not the Rust software, and they suggest doing that by saying "ABC compiler for Rust" instead. But that phrasing definitely doesn't make the intended distinction any clearer to my ears.
It also seems strange that they would allow a different compiler to use the trademark to refer to the language, as in "ABC compiler for Rust", without any requirement that the language implemented by the compiler is in fact the Rust™ language with "the same features and functionality", so that it doesn't create exactly the kind of confusion they're trying to avoid with this policy.
Edit: I'm not necessarily in favor of such conformance requirements. It's a tool that can be used both for good and for evil: Java used it to successfully defend against Microsoft but also to (in effect) prevent Adoptium from distributing OpenJ9.
Registered trademarks have to be defended, if you don't defend them they can be invalidated. Forking the language is certainly one kind of feedback. But I get the feeling that most people who have a problem with this new policy would rather that there was no policy at all, no enforcement. I don't think that's very realistic.
b) creating a chilling effect which robs the community of momentum on meetups, books, tutorials or even just really enthusiastic fan/technical channels like for example https://www.youtube.com/@NoBoilerplate
If I thought I needed to have a "use of marks" policy at all, I probably wouldn't choose to draft a policy that instead permits absolutely anyone to go around masquerading as The Rust Language, as, well, that would not accomplish any goal.
You don't write a policy like this in such a way that it permits people to use the mark for just anything. It needs to be restrictive, at least a little bit. If it's registered then it needs to be protected; if you allow the indiscriminate use, you lose the trademark (and then just anyone can call their copier a Xerox machine on the package. Now if you're Xerox Corporation you actually do have a problem.)
Then again, I am a Rubyist, so I just went and checked on what trademark policies the Ruby language has, and as it turns out (unless I missed something) there are none. There also isn't a Ruby foundation – there's Ruby Central, the non-profit responsible for organizing the conferences (those are RubyConf and RailsConf) but they don't exert controlling authority over any community outside of the cons. They don't own any trademarks as far as I can tell. Maybe don't need this at all.
There is a Rails Foundation. Another example, not a language but: DHH owns the "Rails" mark and the trademark policy is this extremely reasonable one-pager (that also provides some specific real-world examples of what types of abusive uses it is intended to prevent. It's clear enough to me why we can't have unauthorized "Ruby Rails" dolls for sale by just anyone.)
I don't know how similar Rust Foundation is to Rails Foundation, but if it is too similar then I think I may begin to understand why people do not like it so much. No offense to DHH.
It does feel kind of circular. "Why is there a trademark policy?" Because we have this trademark and we don't want to lose it. "Why do we have a trademark?" To be held in trust by the foundation. Why do we have a foundation? To protect the interests of the community.
Well, if the community seemingly hates this new policy so much, are we doing that?
---
There is a third option though, you didn't mention: the Rust Foundation could actually listen to the community's feedback and draft a new proposal. I'm sure they won't let their mark get invalidated. I'm less sure they will listen now. (People all seem to have made up their mind that no compromise is possible, from where I sit.)
But maybe Ruby as a counter-example is more helpful than I thought. What company or collective stewards Ruby on behalf of the Ruby community? There isn't one, at least not officially. I used to think of Heroku as the company. Matz, the language's creator was employed there as "Chief Architect of Ruby" – is he still associated with Heroku/SalesForce now?
I don't know. I tried to find out if that is still true, all I found was a Wiki article that says he works somewhere else today. It's unclear if he still retains the title and position at Heroku/SalesForce.
So maybe Ruby didn't need a foundation, or maybe it did. Look at Heroku now. If Ruby was counting on their support, I think we'd all be in some kind of trouble. Maybe we are in trouble. I don't know how you feel about Ruby, but I like it! And I don't feel in trouble, that's good for me, so maybe I see your point.
I hope that we get to have more cool events where practitioners can meet up and advance the state of the art for their favorite language. And I'm frankly not sure if any of this information makes me more or less interested in using Ruby or Rust today. I think I'm fairly indifferent about it all. I don't want to get sued, mainly.
So I guess I do at least understand "Why CrabLang" then.
That's the same as taking homeopathics, "just in case". In the end the only thing that does (apart from possible placebo effect) is signal to everyone that you don't have any understanding of the basics of natural sciences (or in this matter the basics of trademark law).
The point is, yes there is, and that it doesn't matter if the document would fail in a court challenge, it's still the document they wrote and the terms they obviously want and think are reasonable, and so it is only reasonable to assume they will try to defend them.
If you want to flout them and get them to sue you so that you can force it to be challenenged in court and hopefully you win and open the door for everyone else, I'm sure they would all appreciate it.
But even aside from whether it would hold up in court or not, it's already a problem that they even tried to claim such things. They should absolutely be criticized for that.
It is not only impeccably fair to criticize them for that document, but there is no more perfectly fair and unassailable way to do it than by simply taking it at it's word and adhering to what it says.
No matter how you try to slice it, it's just not even slightly unreasonable to simply do what the Rust Foundation commanded everyone to do.
Then why is the foundation adding language that signals their intention to sue people who use the trademark in domain names, learning material, packages and so on?
"Am I the only one..."
Yes. That is exactly the point, that even such obviously allowable uses of the name are actually not allowed. So they are merely adhering to the rules they didn't write or ask for.
If you think it's stupid, well, yes, so does everyone else. That's the wbole point. But it's not everyone else being stupid it's the Rust Foundation.
Comments
Am I the only one who feels like their stubborn insistence to not say which language they’re forking is just childish? What is this, Hogwarts?
I recognize that the whole argument is trademark law and controlling the name “Rust”, but someone having a trademark doesn’t mean that outsiders aren’t allowed to say or write the name.
Suggesting that this is the case, is exactly the kind of FUD they say they’re not after.
Did you read the new trademark policy?
I did, and it says (in section 3.1): "The law [...] prohibits creating a 'likelihood of confusion' but allows for 'nominative use.' For example, you cannot say you are distributing the Rust compiler when what you are distributing differs from the version distributed by the Rust Project, because people would be confused [...] However, you can say you use and like the Rust software, that you participate in the Rust community, that you are providing an unmodified version of the Rust software, or that you wrote a manual describing how to develop software using Rust."
And in section 4.1.3: "You may use the Word Marks, but not the Logos, to truthfully describe the relationship between your software and ours. Our Marks should be used after a verb or preposition that describes the relationship between your software and ours. So you may say, for example, 'the Dungeness tool for the Rust compiler' but may not say 'the Dungeness Rust compiler,' which suggests that Dungeness is the source of the Rust compiler."
So a GCC implementation of Rust cannot call itself The GCC Rust compiler. Not sure that that's reasonable.
Yeah, that part is a little strange. They mention in section 4.1.4 that you must make clear that you're referring to the Rust language and not the Rust software, and they suggest doing that by saying "ABC compiler for Rust" instead. But that phrasing definitely doesn't make the intended distinction any clearer to my ears.
It also seems strange that they would allow a different compiler to use the trademark to refer to the language, as in "ABC compiler for Rust", without any requirement that the language implemented by the compiler is in fact the Rust™ language with "the same features and functionality", so that it doesn't create exactly the kind of confusion they're trying to avoid with this policy.
Edit: I'm not necessarily in favor of such conformance requirements. It's a tool that can be used both for good and for evil: Java used it to successfully defend against Microsoft but also to (in effect) prevent Adoptium from distributing OpenJ9.
This is a draft policy, right? Wouldn't it make sense to provide this feedback directly to the foundation?
https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/04/12/trademark-...
Registered trademarks have to be defended, if you don't defend them they can be invalidated. Forking the language is certainly one kind of feedback. But I get the feeling that most people who have a problem with this new policy would rather that there was no policy at all, no enforcement. I don't think that's very realistic.
Which worst-case scenario would you choose?
a) the trademark getting invalidated
b) creating a chilling effect which robs the community of momentum on meetups, books, tutorials or even just really enthusiastic fan/technical channels like for example https://www.youtube.com/@NoBoilerplate
If I thought I needed to have a "use of marks" policy at all, I probably wouldn't choose to draft a policy that instead permits absolutely anyone to go around masquerading as The Rust Language, as, well, that would not accomplish any goal.
You don't write a policy like this in such a way that it permits people to use the mark for just anything. It needs to be restrictive, at least a little bit. If it's registered then it needs to be protected; if you allow the indiscriminate use, you lose the trademark (and then just anyone can call their copier a Xerox machine on the package. Now if you're Xerox Corporation you actually do have a problem.)
Then again, I am a Rubyist, so I just went and checked on what trademark policies the Ruby language has, and as it turns out (unless I missed something) there are none. There also isn't a Ruby foundation – there's Ruby Central, the non-profit responsible for organizing the conferences (those are RubyConf and RailsConf) but they don't exert controlling authority over any community outside of the cons. They don't own any trademarks as far as I can tell. Maybe don't need this at all.
There is a Rails Foundation. Another example, not a language but: DHH owns the "Rails" mark and the trademark policy is this extremely reasonable one-pager (that also provides some specific real-world examples of what types of abusive uses it is intended to prevent. It's clear enough to me why we can't have unauthorized "Ruby Rails" dolls for sale by just anyone.)
https://rubyonrails.org/trademarks
I don't know how similar Rust Foundation is to Rails Foundation, but if it is too similar then I think I may begin to understand why people do not like it so much. No offense to DHH.
It does feel kind of circular. "Why is there a trademark policy?" Because we have this trademark and we don't want to lose it. "Why do we have a trademark?" To be held in trust by the foundation. Why do we have a foundation? To protect the interests of the community.
Well, if the community seemingly hates this new policy so much, are we doing that? ---
There is a third option though, you didn't mention: the Rust Foundation could actually listen to the community's feedback and draft a new proposal. I'm sure they won't let their mark get invalidated. I'm less sure they will listen now. (People all seem to have made up their mind that no compromise is possible, from where I sit.)
But maybe Ruby as a counter-example is more helpful than I thought. What company or collective stewards Ruby on behalf of the Ruby community? There isn't one, at least not officially. I used to think of Heroku as the company. Matz, the language's creator was employed there as "Chief Architect of Ruby" – is he still associated with Heroku/SalesForce now?
I don't know. I tried to find out if that is still true, all I found was a Wiki article that says he works somewhere else today. It's unclear if he still retains the title and position at Heroku/SalesForce.
So maybe Ruby didn't need a foundation, or maybe it did. Look at Heroku now. If Ruby was counting on their support, I think we'd all be in some kind of trouble. Maybe we are in trouble. I don't know how you feel about Ruby, but I like it! And I don't feel in trouble, that's good for me, so maybe I see your point.
I hope that we get to have more cool events where practitioners can meet up and advance the state of the art for their favorite language. And I'm frankly not sure if any of this information makes me more or less interested in using Ruby or Rust today. I think I'm fairly indifferent about it all. I don't want to get sued, mainly.
So I guess I do at least understand "Why CrabLang" then.
Yes, and no trademark policy in the world can make uttering the trademark a forbidden word that no one is ever allowed to say/write.
Why risk it
The point is: There is no risk.
That's the same as taking homeopathics, "just in case". In the end the only thing that does (apart from possible placebo effect) is signal to everyone that you don't have any understanding of the basics of natural sciences (or in this matter the basics of trademark law).
Getting sued can be expensive, even if there is little chance of losing the suit.
The point is, yes there is, and that it doesn't matter if the document would fail in a court challenge, it's still the document they wrote and the terms they obviously want and think are reasonable, and so it is only reasonable to assume they will try to defend them.
If you want to flout them and get them to sue you so that you can force it to be challenenged in court and hopefully you win and open the door for everyone else, I'm sure they would all appreciate it.
But even aside from whether it would hold up in court or not, it's already a problem that they even tried to claim such things. They should absolutely be criticized for that.
It is not only impeccably fair to criticize them for that document, but there is no more perfectly fair and unassailable way to do it than by simply taking it at it's word and adhering to what it says.
No matter how you try to slice it, it's just not even slightly unreasonable to simply do what the Rust Foundation commanded everyone to do.
Then why is the foundation adding language that signals their intention to sue people who use the trademark in domain names, learning material, packages and so on?
"Am I the only one..." Yes. That is exactly the point, that even such obviously allowable uses of the name are actually not allowed. So they are merely adhering to the rules they didn't write or ask for.
If you think it's stupid, well, yes, so does everyone else. That's the wbole point. But it's not everyone else being stupid it's the Rust Foundation.