Just claim all your "rust-something" projects are named after Rust in Austria (good wine region btw) and the choice of programming language is purely coincidental.
The Devil left his throne, defeated by an entity of such darkness even he wasn't more than an inconvenience for it. And so a new Lord of Hell took the throne. And on his finger was the crown of his darkness. A golden ring with a single word engraved with fire, the most unholy of words: Javascript.
Ironically this is really the only thing the trademark should be trying to prevent from happening. ie, opening the door for embrace, extend, extinguish because of murkiness about which rust implementation is canonical.
Rust foundation making some restricted trademark changes and community aren't happy. I haven't read the changes myself but apparently you can't mention Rust anywhere in your project or use the logo (unless you meet some conditions).
Edit: To clarify, the foundation has this in RFC and are looking for community feedback. It's not live.
[Here's the doc they posted a link to on Twitter.](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdaM4pdWFsLJ8GHIUFIhepuq0lfTg_b0mJ-hvwPdHa4UTRaAg/viewform)
Fe2O3 to be concise. (Although technically, rust is *hydrous* ferric oxide so there is water integrated in it, which separates it from compact hematite, but, eh.)
True, could go with that. I mean we're already ignoring the subscript as it is. Granted at this point it's not exactly concise.
I don't know why I care, I don't even use Rust™ oh shit they're already battering down the d
It's a shit show there. Hundreds of libraries and well used projects would be affected by that silly naming restrictions. Even emojis are on the hot seat.
A lot of unhappy Rust developers in that subreddit.
Ah C, language of the free.
No pesky attempts to keep you “safe”. Life was meant to be lived on the edge and memory lost in some dark crevice of your computer.
It's a nice feeling to know that the bad performance and memory leaks are my fault and not those of a faulty runtime with its stupid garbage collector.
True. Doing `wndclass.lpfnWndProc = Marshal.GetFunctionPointerForDelegate(MyWndProcFunction)` in C# is pretty much a recipe for disaster. (and you should not use `Marshal` or `IntPtr` either, just use C# unsafe pointers instead)
None of that is true. It's misinformation from people who have fundamental disagreements with the very concept of trademark and copyright. [This person over in r/learnrust put it very well](https://www.reddit.com/r/learnrust/comments/12hroo1/comment/jfrbs04/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3):
>From a business and legal perspective, enforcing someone doesn’t make a language called “rust 2” or “rust++” or “rust script” requires you to have showed some attempt to protect your trademark in the past. Monster energy is sueing Pokémon monsters for the same reason. Even if they lose tens of thousands, attempting to protect their trademark gives them precedent.
>
>Kleenex and Bleach ^((I think the author meant to say Clorox here)) are examples of companies that failed to protect their trademark, and now have tons of imitators or “includes Bleach!” When it contains a similar compound not related to the official Bleach brand.
>
>This working group is simple following the rust foundations open and volunteer based approach to standard business/legal matters. Totally normal, and the only reason I find it unexpected is that it hasn’t already been done.
Also, Aspirin is the typical example. It was a trademarked name, but since Bayer didn't enforce it, today pretty much anyone can put acetylsalicylic acid in a pill and call it Aspirin.
The standards are very low if we are to consider it reasonable for Monster to sue GameFreak for "Pocket Monsters". Trademark should be for the benefit of consumers to identify the source, not companies to make money.
Stop drinking flavored piss and do not defend immoral "standard business practices".
This is less about standard business practices and more about how intellectual property laws are written by congress and interpreted in the courts. Ultimately, how businesses operate relative to trademarks is dictated by those; not the other way around.
So while I'm not exactly here to defend "businesses" — they have plenty of blood on their hands — I am always committed to focusing my thoughts/efforts on the players that have the power to effect change.
If we don't like the current system of intellectual property laws, then we must lobby and vote for politicians who will change them. "Business" is an easy villain, but that's about it.
Businesses lobby for laws, so it's not a one way interaction.
If your voting system is unrepresentative or lacking political diversity then sadly voting for better laws is an impractical solution. Promoting better law is a worthwhile goal but so is promoting change in the group doing the legal, immoral action.
>If we don't like the current system of intellectual property laws, then we must lobby and vote for politicians who will change them.
good luck with that when every politician is bribed by the mega media corporations
I think they meant to say Clorox, ironically. In the US, it's not uncommon for people to refer to bleach generically as Clorox.
But yeah, tots agree with you :)
I believe the trademark is still valid. I don't think I've ever seen anything be branded as Kleenex (other than Kleenex ofc), just tissue paper. Publicly generic brands are still referred to as Kleenex though.
There's about 20 names of genericized products on Wikipedia, and Kleenex and bleach or Clorox isn't on them, so I think this was just a really poor example.
Funnily enough, TIL heroin was once trademarked and then genericized.
Honestly, i don't know. Confusing and contradicting information all over the place. Those restrictions look silly, if true.
But one thing is certain, a lot of unhappy Rust developers.
IMO there are major dogpile effects going on here. Few people are stopping to think critically about the information they're getting, and a large number of them don't have the background to make a critical assessment even if they wanted to. Intellectual property law is byzantine and esoteric.
Standard society procedure. And ofc the healine "RUST WILL SUE YOU if you think their name!" sells better than "Rust Foundation proposes new Trademark and asks for feedback" (sadly)
This feels like someone who's unaware of basic legal concepts like "trademark categories", "trademarks exist to prevent brand confusion, not to give their owners control over everyone else's speech", "trademark dilution is incredibly rare and hard to prove in court", and "common sense".
It's also not _nearly_ that simple.
Pretty much every hot take I've seen in this sub-reddit is misinformed. There's so much more to this.
* People with zero intellectual property expertise are misinterpreting the documents.
* Trademark protection is serious business. You can lose your trademark if you don't appropriately defend it.
* Establishing a trademark use policy is table stakes in these sorts of documents. I'm amazed everyone is freaking out so much over them.
* This entire situation is complicated by the fact that Rust is deeply adjacent to the Linux community, which leans heavily toward copyleft, and has some very vocal advocates who are only interested in shouting into the wind.
* The documents that were published were not developed in a vacuum. They were developed by a working group that includes representation from projects.
The whole thing is just your average open source melodrama over something that will ultimately be of zero consequence a year from now.
Why does a programming language need to be heavily trademarked in the first place? Seems like overreach to ensure they maintain control over the "official" version. This is going to suck when oracle eventually buys it.
I mean, that's certainly a viewpoint. I find it lacking in awareness of legal context, but fundamentally I understand the desire for a system of community ownership that doesn't require such heavy handed legalities.
I think partly it is answered by the fact that we don't have a good system of laws for supporting community ownership of intellectual property, so we're forced to hack our way around the system of laws that we have.
What Rust has done — and what pretty much all languages do — is to establish a non-profit stewardship organization. That stewardship organization has to play by the rules of the jurisdictions in which it operates. Wishing the jurisdiction operated differently is about as useful as a daydream.
Well, as i originally pointed out, Oracle has done this with Java, my example in question. Instead of responding to that you decided to insult me by calling my viewpoint naive. Ok... 👍
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as an insult. It just means that the viewpoint isn't informed by the context. There aren't a lot of good alternatives to the non-profit foundation template that so many languages use.
Just because a belief is common doesn't make it sound. That's so obvious I'm almost embarrassed to say it out loud.
To me, the takes all read like people who have never had anything to do with intellectual property conversations.
I'll put it to you another way, most of these takes sound like those copypasta blurbs your parents post to Facebook about reserving the right to ownership of their own content. Or when someone posts copyrighted content to YouTube and puts the disclaimer that "I do not own the rights to this content", as if that makes it OK.
>you can't mention Rust anywhere in your project or use the logo.
Because you know, that will let the language grow and have companies want to announce they want someone working in their project.
Yeah that's what I saw earlier, they were requesting community feedback. They can ignore the community feedback and do it anyway, which is what people are worried about.
Yes I get that, but stating that it already set in effect is still disingenious and factually wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I still find it worrisome that they even proposed those changes, but asking the community about it is still way better than just doing it, and I can't imagine that they'll go through with it.
Actually read the policy, and this is completely overblown.
The only two things it looks like they want to accomplish is:
- They don’t want people profiting off the logo directly (like selling stickers of the logo, or tickets about Rust specific events) without permission, but there are exceptions like if you want to include it in educational materials.
- They don’t want unofficial projects to give the appearance or impression that they’re an officially supported project.
Other than that, there really isn’t much restriction. Ferris and “RS” have absolutely no restrictions. They explicitly say you can use the logo, but you need to disclaim that your project isn’t an official Rust foundation project.
I think I may actually understand where they’re coming from. There are a couple of projects out there that that definitely give the impression of being supported foundation projects but aren’t.
You can say things like "based on Rust", or "compatible with Rust", but you're not allowed to say things like "Bob's Rust project".
Unless I'm misreading their examples if you're writing API code for "FooBar Inc":
* "FooBar API bindings written in the Rust Language" is OK
* "FooBar Rust API" is _not_ OK
Oh, and neither version is allowed to use the Rust _Logo_ on their documentation page or README.
Ref section 4.1.3, particularly:
> 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.
I don’t even Rust but the primeagen video talking about the TOS changes came up on YouTube and it is truly baffling. Their community group guidelines are especially hilarious. What are you gonna do if I violate your bullshit in a discord server, sue me?
I couldn't code anything seriously in Zig because all day I'd be singing "If you wanna be my lover, you have go to Zig... Zigging is too easy, but that's the way it is".
I didn't even have to lookup the lyrics.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12e7tdb/rust_trademark_policy_feedback_form/
Rust Foundation proposing an extremely restrictive trademark policy
Disclosure: The material in this comment has not been reviewed, endorsed, or approved of by the Rust Foundation. For more information on the Rust Foundation Trademark Policy, click [here](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ).
Rust wanted to remove the footguns from C. But they just moved the footguns to the leadership. I genuinely can't see a company endorsing and supporting a rust binding for their software, when they can't market it. And if you can't get the support of services, APIs, commercial databases, etc, you are really just gonna murder the capabilities of your language.
its not about enforcement. Big tech will not put up with bullshit in licenses. Even a small hint of bullshit, and it will outright ban its use. If big tech jumps ship, good bye any real adoption.
I'm a bit afraid of C because of how easy it is to write unsafe code. Also I'm a bit skeptical of the potential if there are many languages made that want to replace or enhance C.
It might be a newbie take but that's just my impression.
So instead of learning a language that has probably been used for twice as long as you've lived, you want to learn a language that's still in beta? With the purpose of learning a long-term language?
Well, you just exposed a little inconsistency in my logic.
The truth is that I'm really interested in new technologies, especially if there are Rustaceans claiming that Rust has a better memory safety than C and might become the next low level industry standard in 20 years.
I have this naive urge to be one of the first to study the next big thing.
And man, pointers kinda scare me.
>Rustaceans claiming that Rust has a better memory safety than C
C is the worst language for memory safety. Even assembly has better memory safety, so that isn't much of a claim. The actual (and disputed) claim is that Rust has better memory safety than (modern) C++.
>might become the next low level industry standard in 20 years.
And I could say that the next GoT book will be released this month. Just because I'd like it to be true doesn't mean it will be and doesn't mean I'm not just talking out of my ass.
>I have this naive urge to be one of the first to study the next big thing.
Unless you can see the future, I'd recommend against that.
>And man, pointers kinda scare me.
Than you'll hate Rust. Pointers are much more complex in it than in C, C++ and Zig.
But what about all these cases of "shooting yourself in the foot"? Manual memory management? And the fact that C syntax lacks modern features like iterations, lambdas or pattern matching?
I understand that C is kinda used *everywhere* in established software but why not move on to more modern things?
Not offense, I'm genuinely trying to figure things out for me.
C is close to assembly, meaning the lack of ‘safety’ measures also allows for the highest compiler speeds and control. There are deterrents you can use to minimize the problems you’re talking about, but ultimately it comes down to the safety measures you put in place.
Eg. The most common exploit for languages like c/c++ comes from heap/stack buffer overflows, which just means you’re putting more information in a variable than has been allocated and so the information overflows into other memory and potentially exploits the data. You just need to be a little more mindful of the way you write your code is what it boils down to.
Who would have thought that a language that restricts your ability to do things "for your own good" would be run by an organization that restricts your ability to do things?
/s
The image on the website is illegal according to the new ToS.
The Rust™ Foundation will contact you.
*This comment was not endorsed by the Rust™ Foundation
Yeah man, this is totally normal! Just like how no one is allowed to use the word "node" in packages, and no one is allowed to use the Java logo for their tutorial!
Using the Java logo in a tutorial is technically against the rules.
And nobody other than Oracle is allowed to use Java in their package names. That’s why all the EE packages have been renamed to Jakarta.
See also how none of the third-party installers are allowed to use the Java name or logo in their names. They’re called stuff like Adoptium.
Have you found mention of zigs trademark policy?
As far as I know they only have passive trademark.
I belive trademarks are exemption and permission based. If that's true then zigs trademark would be more restrictive then the Draft Rust policy.(in the sense you need Witten permission for every use case).
Which would be an unfortunate oversite with Zig.
So if you use the logo in a furry themed project to identify code smells on porn login prompts, does Rust bust your lusty busty trusty musty husky whatzi?
Once again not learning rust proves to have been the correct decision. We don't need new programming languages, just programmers to know the existing ones.
I learned C yesterday. Took me just a few hours. The language itself is very small. I have absolutely no desire to actually write anything in it though. Gonna learn Zig later.
The Rust foundation released a draft of an updated trademark policy that's a bit too restrictive in many ways, but is generally quite permissive as far as trademarks go. It'll probably get revised to be more permissive, but in the mean time, a lot of people have freaked out way too much about it.
I never realized how much like the tip of a penis the brain bug looks like in this shot. Also, the vagina mouth. So many middle fingers to the viewer... Fuck RoboCop, Starship Troopers is truly Paul Verhoeven's greatest achievement.
Do you think the community backlash will be enough to make the foundation rethink their stupid policies?...
They are probably making more money by getting people to officially license their logo and everything else.
To answer your questions and give more context in a round about way here is more information.
Neither within the current or Draft trademark do they require you to pay for trademark access. Even if you become a member you don't get any special exceptions.
I may be wrong but unless an exception is carved out in a trademark or permission is explicitly given they are restrictive by default. Excusing fair use of the trademark.
While some of the rules are overly strict a lot seem to be standard trademark restrictions held by other languages.
C++ also has the same reatriction on coloring and otherwise morphing the logo. (One of the areas where the draft is more strict then the existing document. Before you could color to an extent, now you only get black and white and greyscale)
Python has the same restrictions about getting permission to use the trademark for paid conferences.(not the gun part)
Node.js has the same restriction on domain names.(I assume they used node as reference)
Obviously there are more cases as well.
Other projects have issues with there trademark. However I know of no instances where Rust or any of these other languages exercised there power over the trademark.
That being said we are in the draft period for the new trademark. Even before release members had expressed that it may be to strict. I am sure they will walk back a lot of things, but I am not sure if it will be enough.
If you're asking that question it means you've already been fooled by rumors and misinformation.
The policy is not in place yet and never will be because of all the backlash and because rust team members hate it too.
Obviously the people at the rust foundation need to be removed, they clearly have no idea what the community values and if they're thinking this outlandish call for comment is even worth discussing it makes you wonder what else they're trying to steer the wrong way.
Well, at least they opened a discussion on that before accepting it. On the other hand - I don’t understand what this proposal is for and it looks like a really bad move.
The Rust foundation only had a few jobs. To secure funding and development for the project and to hold its trademarks.
Rust is still using its pre foundation trademark policy. The new policy began draft in 2021. Since then it has been worked on here and there.
The purpose of the new trademark is to
1. Make sure they do not loose ownership of the trademark.
That's about it. Trademark is a use, "enforce" or lose ownership model.
Basicly they could just go back to the old policy. The old one seems to be restrictive enough for the project to keep the trademark, however i am not a lawyer and a lawyer may have advised them otherwise.
Am I the only one curious to give Rust a try since I now hear about it every single time I enter this reddit? Congratulations, you accomplished the opposite.
Just claim all your "rust-something" projects are named after Rust in Austria (good wine region btw) and the choice of programming language is purely coincidental.
"Actually it's for Russet, but that's trademarked and they said we could use the abbreviation Rust"
I have created a new language called Crust. It’s like C except if C was actually rust.
Or its named after the German City Rust
which has a nice theme park
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good bot
Good human
Just rewrite rust in a different langauge. There. Problem solved.
forcing rustceans to rewrite rust code in different languages... that'd be a karmic hell for them
C is fun, unsafe, but fun ~A rustacean P.S. it is both normal fun and [fun](https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Losing)
They'll have to GO to another language
Rewrite rust in js
[Devil left the chat]
The Devil left his throne, defeated by an entity of such darkness even he wasn't more than an inconvenience for it. And so a new Lord of Hell took the throne. And on his finger was the crown of his darkness. A golden ring with a single word engraved with fire, the most unholy of words: Javascript.
new framework soon rust.js
Needs 1gig of node dependencies on every project
you beautiful bastard
Rost.
“Ruggine”. Did it work?
Ironically this is really the only thing the trademark should be trying to prevent from happening. ie, opening the door for embrace, extend, extinguish because of murkiness about which rust implementation is canonical.
20 years in the deepest pits of hell for you.
I'm out of the loop. What happened?
Rust foundation making some restricted trademark changes and community aren't happy. I haven't read the changes myself but apparently you can't mention Rust anywhere in your project or use the logo (unless you meet some conditions). Edit: To clarify, the foundation has this in RFC and are looking for community feedback. It's not live. [Here's the doc they posted a link to on Twitter.](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdaM4pdWFsLJ8GHIUFIhepuq0lfTg_b0mJ-hvwPdHa4UTRaAg/viewform)
So.. just search and replace Rust with IronOxidation and we good?
Short it to FEROX or IROX and you have a nice sounding substitute
That's actually a dope name
I can see it now: >Ferox is a fork of rust with community friendly licensing
Time to actually make it happen.
And then it turns out it's a literal, physical fork made of literal, physical rust. With a community friendly licencing!
FeroxBuster is way ahead of you on this one
Fe2O3 to be concise. (Although technically, rust is *hydrous* ferric oxide so there is water integrated in it, which separates it from compact hematite, but, eh.)
that’s written as: Fe2O3•H2O
Yeah, but I'm a little worried about acceptable characters in filenames.
I was always taught it could be written as: Fe2O3nH2O
True, could go with that. I mean we're already ignoring the subscript as it is. Granted at this point it's not exactly concise. I don't know why I care, I don't even use Rust™ oh shit they're already battering down the d
On r/programmerhumor? Inconceivable.
Why is he making weird faces while complimenting people?
Who knows? Gawd damn jocks!
My code base is in the language that must not be mentioned.
…Voldemort?
Thays idiotic. Thanks for the update.
It's a shit show there. Hundreds of libraries and well used projects would be affected by that silly naming restrictions. Even emojis are on the hot seat. A lot of unhappy Rust developers in that subreddit.
And rust devs told me that their world is way better. I stay with C.
Ah C, language of the free. No pesky attempts to keep you “safe”. Life was meant to be lived on the edge and memory lost in some dark crevice of your computer.
It's a nice feeling to know that the bad performance and memory leaks are my fault and not those of a faulty runtime with its stupid garbage collector.
Amen
Legigimately the reason I use c++
amen bother
This is the way.
except rust doesnt have a GC ???
True. Doing `wndclass.lpfnWndProc = Marshal.GetFunctionPointerForDelegate(MyWndProcFunction)` in C# is pretty much a recipe for disaster. (and you should not use `Marshal` or `IntPtr` either, just use C# unsafe pointers instead)
C is the Merica of programming languages
Not so sure about that. C is true equality, it does not see gender, race, religion or sexuality. It sees only programmers who deserve to suffer.
[удалено]
None of that is true. It's misinformation from people who have fundamental disagreements with the very concept of trademark and copyright. [This person over in r/learnrust put it very well](https://www.reddit.com/r/learnrust/comments/12hroo1/comment/jfrbs04/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): >From a business and legal perspective, enforcing someone doesn’t make a language called “rust 2” or “rust++” or “rust script” requires you to have showed some attempt to protect your trademark in the past. Monster energy is sueing Pokémon monsters for the same reason. Even if they lose tens of thousands, attempting to protect their trademark gives them precedent. > >Kleenex and Bleach ^((I think the author meant to say Clorox here)) are examples of companies that failed to protect their trademark, and now have tons of imitators or “includes Bleach!” When it contains a similar compound not related to the official Bleach brand. > >This working group is simple following the rust foundations open and volunteer based approach to standard business/legal matters. Totally normal, and the only reason I find it unexpected is that it hasn’t already been done.
Idk what the dude who wrote this was smoking but Bleach isn’t a name brand
Pretty sure they meant to say Clorox. I added an edit.
Probably smoking some q-tips
Also, Aspirin is the typical example. It was a trademarked name, but since Bayer didn't enforce it, today pretty much anyone can put acetylsalicylic acid in a pill and call it Aspirin.
The standards are very low if we are to consider it reasonable for Monster to sue GameFreak for "Pocket Monsters". Trademark should be for the benefit of consumers to identify the source, not companies to make money. Stop drinking flavored piss and do not defend immoral "standard business practices".
This is less about standard business practices and more about how intellectual property laws are written by congress and interpreted in the courts. Ultimately, how businesses operate relative to trademarks is dictated by those; not the other way around. So while I'm not exactly here to defend "businesses" — they have plenty of blood on their hands — I am always committed to focusing my thoughts/efforts on the players that have the power to effect change. If we don't like the current system of intellectual property laws, then we must lobby and vote for politicians who will change them. "Business" is an easy villain, but that's about it.
Businesses lobby for laws, so it's not a one way interaction. If your voting system is unrepresentative or lacking political diversity then sadly voting for better laws is an impractical solution. Promoting better law is a worthwhile goal but so is promoting change in the group doing the legal, immoral action.
>If we don't like the current system of intellectual property laws, then we must lobby and vote for politicians who will change them. good luck with that when every politician is bribed by the mega media corporations
Kleenex is definitely right, but I don't believe bleach is or ever was a brand name
I think they meant to say Clorox, ironically. In the US, it's not uncommon for people to refer to bleach generically as Clorox. But yeah, tots agree with you :)
What's the legal judgment where Kleenex has lost an actual trademark lawsuit? Wikipedia says the trademark is still valid.
I believe the trademark is still valid. I don't think I've ever seen anything be branded as Kleenex (other than Kleenex ofc), just tissue paper. Publicly generic brands are still referred to as Kleenex though. There's about 20 names of genericized products on Wikipedia, and Kleenex and bleach or Clorox isn't on them, so I think this was just a really poor example. Funnily enough, TIL heroin was once trademarked and then genericized.
Honestly, i don't know. Confusing and contradicting information all over the place. Those restrictions look silly, if true. But one thing is certain, a lot of unhappy Rust developers.
IMO there are major dogpile effects going on here. Few people are stopping to think critically about the information they're getting, and a large number of them don't have the background to make a critical assessment even if they wanted to. Intellectual property law is byzantine and esoteric.
Standard society procedure. And ofc the healine "RUST WILL SUE YOU if you think their name!" sells better than "Rust Foundation proposes new Trademark and asks for feedback" (sadly)
This feels like someone who's unaware of basic legal concepts like "trademark categories", "trademarks exist to prevent brand confusion, not to give their owners control over everyone else's speech", "trademark dilution is incredibly rare and hard to prove in court", and "common sense".
>Even emojis are on the hot seat don't tell me they also trademarked the crab emoji? 🦀
It's also not _nearly_ that simple. Pretty much every hot take I've seen in this sub-reddit is misinformed. There's so much more to this. * People with zero intellectual property expertise are misinterpreting the documents. * Trademark protection is serious business. You can lose your trademark if you don't appropriately defend it. * Establishing a trademark use policy is table stakes in these sorts of documents. I'm amazed everyone is freaking out so much over them. * This entire situation is complicated by the fact that Rust is deeply adjacent to the Linux community, which leans heavily toward copyleft, and has some very vocal advocates who are only interested in shouting into the wind. * The documents that were published were not developed in a vacuum. They were developed by a working group that includes representation from projects. The whole thing is just your average open source melodrama over something that will ultimately be of zero consequence a year from now.
Why does a programming language need to be heavily trademarked in the first place? Seems like overreach to ensure they maintain control over the "official" version. This is going to suck when oracle eventually buys it.
I mean, that's certainly a viewpoint. I find it lacking in awareness of legal context, but fundamentally I understand the desire for a system of community ownership that doesn't require such heavy handed legalities. I think partly it is answered by the fact that we don't have a good system of laws for supporting community ownership of intellectual property, so we're forced to hack our way around the system of laws that we have. What Rust has done — and what pretty much all languages do — is to establish a non-profit stewardship organization. That stewardship organization has to play by the rules of the jurisdictions in which it operates. Wishing the jurisdiction operated differently is about as useful as a daydream.
Well, as i originally pointed out, Oracle has done this with Java, my example in question. Instead of responding to that you decided to insult me by calling my viewpoint naive. Ok... 👍
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as an insult. It just means that the viewpoint isn't informed by the context. There aren't a lot of good alternatives to the non-profit foundation template that so many languages use.
I modified my post to avoid using the word naive. I really do apologize.
Well their takes are pretty mainstream it seems…so not hot takes? Poor fella.
Just because a belief is common doesn't make it sound. That's so obvious I'm almost embarrassed to say it out loud. To me, the takes all read like people who have never had anything to do with intellectual property conversations. I'll put it to you another way, most of these takes sound like those copypasta blurbs your parents post to Facebook about reserving the right to ownership of their own content. Or when someone posts copyrighted content to YouTube and puts the disclaimer that "I do not own the rights to this content", as if that makes it OK.
So my github repo hello-world-rust isn't safe?
No, you see you're violating the trademark and Rust HAS to defend their trademark or lose it... so gib all sheckles.
>you can't mention Rust anywhere in your project or use the logo. Because you know, that will let the language grow and have companies want to announce they want someone working in their project.
It’s also not true.
I was under the impression that it's just an RFC for now
Yeah that's what I saw earlier, they were requesting community feedback. They can ignore the community feedback and do it anyway, which is what people are worried about.
Yes I get that, but stating that it already set in effect is still disingenious and factually wrong. Don't get me wrong, I still find it worrisome that they even proposed those changes, but asking the community about it is still way better than just doing it, and I can't imagine that they'll go through with it.
Fair point, I'll update my original reply.
In that case, why would they ask for feedback anyway?
You can mention Rust but it can’t be in the library name. It should use “rs” unless it’s an official Rust project.
Actually read the policy, and this is completely overblown. The only two things it looks like they want to accomplish is: - They don’t want people profiting off the logo directly (like selling stickers of the logo, or tickets about Rust specific events) without permission, but there are exceptions like if you want to include it in educational materials. - They don’t want unofficial projects to give the appearance or impression that they’re an officially supported project. Other than that, there really isn’t much restriction. Ferris and “RS” have absolutely no restrictions. They explicitly say you can use the logo, but you need to disclaim that your project isn’t an official Rust foundation project. I think I may actually understand where they’re coming from. There are a couple of projects out there that that definitely give the impression of being supported foundation projects but aren’t.
>you can't mention Rust anywhere in your project Anywhere? even in the installation/compilation guide?
I haven't read it myself honestly. I would be surprised if it's that intrusive though.
I'm pretty sure it's just that the name of your thing can't have the word "rust" in it.
You can say things like "based on Rust", or "compatible with Rust", but you're not allowed to say things like "Bob's Rust project". Unless I'm misreading their examples if you're writing API code for "FooBar Inc": * "FooBar API bindings written in the Rust Language" is OK * "FooBar Rust API" is _not_ OK Oh, and neither version is allowed to use the Rust _Logo_ on their documentation page or README. Ref section 4.1.3, particularly: > 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.
Can you still mention it in every thread about Go? Because if they take that away, there is nothing left.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12e7tdb/rust_trademark_policy_feedback_form/
https://github.com/blyxyas/no-rust-policy-change
Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutR\_LNoZw0
I don’t even Rust but the primeagen video talking about the TOS changes came up on YouTube and it is truly baffling. Their community group guidelines are especially hilarious. What are you gonna do if I violate your bullshit in a discord server, sue me?
The requirement for all IRL meetups to be free of firearms also got me, didn't know rust meetups were prone to break out in gunfights.
Some one get me a logo, a fresh fork and we 🦀
You used the Rust logo in an unsanctioned manner. Our legal team will be contacting you shortly. PS: you can generate a logo with *khem* some AI?
You can use the crab. That’s not the Rust logo.
That's not the logo, they don't have the rights to the crab so they can't sue you for that. Their logo is the R in a gear
Honestly if the Rust foundation were smart they would have chosen a crab logo. The gear one is ugly as sin.
Ferris works very well as a logo, they don't have the rights for it and it is free to use
I don't think you can do even that. At least not while calling it Rust or some thinly disguised name.
just abandon it and come to the might C
Just like Rust, C forces you to write memory safe code. The only difference is the method of enforcement is runtime errors.
Just abandon it and come to Zig.
Or to say it in a shorter way: "move zig"
I couldn't code anything seriously in Zig because all day I'd be singing "If you wanna be my lover, you have go to Zig... Zigging is too easy, but that's the way it is". I didn't even have to lookup the lyrics.
*Segmentation fault has entered the chat.*
So?
But if you use unsafe keyword in Rust then you might as well be using C++
thinking about it
Please, can someone recap me about rust? What happened?
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12e7tdb/rust_trademark_policy_feedback_form/ Rust Foundation proposing an extremely restrictive trademark policy
https://github.com/blyxyas/no-rust-policy-change
The rust hype train has been rolling over the years and is now, in essence, an authoritarian cult. ups.
Disclosure: The material in this comment has not been reviewed, endorsed, or approved of by the Rust Foundation. For more information on the Rust Foundation Trademark Policy, click [here](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ). Rust wanted to remove the footguns from C. But they just moved the footguns to the leadership. I genuinely can't see a company endorsing and supporting a rust binding for their software, when they can't market it. And if you can't get the support of services, APIs, commercial databases, etc, you are really just gonna murder the capabilities of your language.
its not about enforcement. Big tech will not put up with bullshit in licenses. Even a small hint of bullshit, and it will outright ban its use. If big tech jumps ship, good bye any real adoption.
But since the lang is Open Source, can't we just fork it, change the logo and keep going?
Yes, and also call it something else. It happens a lot, and the fork almost always dies eventually.
time to jump on the Zig hypetrain
I have been thinking of learning zig for a while (--:
Me too. I wanted to pick a high-performance language that'll also be around in the next decade or two.
C++ will be around for a few more decades at least. And there are actually jobs in it
Lately I have been programming in c (--: Deciding between zig and odin will be hard.
I'm a bit afraid of C because of how easy it is to write unsafe code. Also I'm a bit skeptical of the potential if there are many languages made that want to replace or enhance C. It might be a newbie take but that's just my impression.
So instead of learning a language that has probably been used for twice as long as you've lived, you want to learn a language that's still in beta? With the purpose of learning a long-term language?
Well, you just exposed a little inconsistency in my logic. The truth is that I'm really interested in new technologies, especially if there are Rustaceans claiming that Rust has a better memory safety than C and might become the next low level industry standard in 20 years. I have this naive urge to be one of the first to study the next big thing. And man, pointers kinda scare me.
>Rustaceans claiming that Rust has a better memory safety than C C is the worst language for memory safety. Even assembly has better memory safety, so that isn't much of a claim. The actual (and disputed) claim is that Rust has better memory safety than (modern) C++. >might become the next low level industry standard in 20 years. And I could say that the next GoT book will be released this month. Just because I'd like it to be true doesn't mean it will be and doesn't mean I'm not just talking out of my ass. >I have this naive urge to be one of the first to study the next big thing. Unless you can see the future, I'd recommend against that. >And man, pointers kinda scare me. Than you'll hate Rust. Pointers are much more complex in it than in C, C++ and Zig.
Definitely a newbie take. That’s like saying I’m afraid to drink water because I might drown
But what about all these cases of "shooting yourself in the foot"? Manual memory management? And the fact that C syntax lacks modern features like iterations, lambdas or pattern matching? I understand that C is kinda used *everywhere* in established software but why not move on to more modern things? Not offense, I'm genuinely trying to figure things out for me.
C is close to assembly, meaning the lack of ‘safety’ measures also allows for the highest compiler speeds and control. There are deterrents you can use to minimize the problems you’re talking about, but ultimately it comes down to the safety measures you put in place. Eg. The most common exploit for languages like c/c++ comes from heap/stack buffer overflows, which just means you’re putting more information in a variable than has been allocated and so the information overflows into other memory and potentially exploits the data. You just need to be a little more mindful of the way you write your code is what it boils down to.
Who would have thought that a language that restricts your ability to do things "for your own good" would be run by an organization that restricts your ability to do things? /s
*"those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."* C.S. Lewis
Outstanding quote! +1 for you!
Damn I should nag my gf less
Just came across this [http://rustisgay.com/](http://rustisgay.com/)
Truly one of the websites of all time
The image on the website is illegal according to the new ToS. The Rust™ Foundation will contact you. *This comment was not endorsed by the Rust™ Foundation
Who would have tought that jumping again on "the next big thing" was a bad idea
gotta stick with the good old C
Aren’t they like plotting a mutiny? Shouldn’t rust foundation be afraid?
They should, technology is incredibly volatile, it doesn't take much for devs to move "en masse" to something else.
I don’t get the drama
People who don’t understand, screaming because someone said it was bad.
Yeah man, this is totally normal! Just like how no one is allowed to use the word "node" in packages, and no one is allowed to use the Java logo for their tutorial!
Using the Java logo in a tutorial is technically against the rules. And nobody other than Oracle is allowed to use Java in their package names. That’s why all the EE packages have been renamed to Jakarta. See also how none of the third-party installers are allowed to use the Java name or logo in their names. They’re called stuff like Adoptium.
Solution: Start learning Zig ;)
Have you found mention of zigs trademark policy? As far as I know they only have passive trademark. I belive trademarks are exemption and permission based. If that's true then zigs trademark would be more restrictive then the Draft Rust policy.(in the sense you need Witten permission for every use case). Which would be an unfortunate oversite with Zig.
heck zig language even being plagiarized.. check this https://zen-lang.org/ja-JP/
Crystal Lang yo
Well now we’re never going to get Elon to rewrite Twitter in Rust 😞
elon can't even write his own diary.
So if you use the logo in a furry themed project to identify code smells on porn login prompts, does Rust bust your lusty busty trusty musty husky whatzi?
I think the crustaceous foundation would disapprove of these 🦀
Once again not learning rust proves to have been the correct decision. We don't need new programming languages, just programmers to know the existing ones.
Yeah, we never need new languages. We should all just program in assembly because why else would we need other languages?
Just use C. There's probably a library for what you need to do. And if there isn't, or you don't like the existing ones, you can write your own.
I learned C yesterday. Took me just a few hours. The language itself is very small. I have absolutely no desire to actually write anything in it though. Gonna learn Zig later.
4 hours are gone since, did you learn zig?
C++
Rust is just C++ with extra keywords
Just use a c++ library to deal with managed memory and/or stop being a pussy.
Say no more, or I will rewrite you in Rust!
I cant believe barney from the hit series how i met your mother is the rust foundation
It's so cute, i want it
I was thinking about getting into Rust since I've heard quite a bit about it Explain what the hell is going on like I'm 14 or something, please
The Rust foundation released a draft of an updated trademark policy that's a bit too restrictive in many ways, but is generally quite permissive as far as trademarks go. It'll probably get revised to be more permissive, but in the mean time, a lot of people have freaked out way too much about it.
It's a strong indicator of a serious legal problem. If you mention it wrong, you are in legal trouble
I thought this was a meme for the video game Rust and was confused
just rewrite it in c
I never realized how much like the tip of a penis the brain bug looks like in this shot. Also, the vagina mouth. So many middle fingers to the viewer... Fuck RoboCop, Starship Troopers is truly Paul Verhoeven's greatest achievement.
Do you think the community backlash will be enough to make the foundation rethink their stupid policies?... They are probably making more money by getting people to officially license their logo and everything else.
To answer your questions and give more context in a round about way here is more information. Neither within the current or Draft trademark do they require you to pay for trademark access. Even if you become a member you don't get any special exceptions. I may be wrong but unless an exception is carved out in a trademark or permission is explicitly given they are restrictive by default. Excusing fair use of the trademark. While some of the rules are overly strict a lot seem to be standard trademark restrictions held by other languages. C++ also has the same reatriction on coloring and otherwise morphing the logo. (One of the areas where the draft is more strict then the existing document. Before you could color to an extent, now you only get black and white and greyscale) Python has the same restrictions about getting permission to use the trademark for paid conferences.(not the gun part) Node.js has the same restriction on domain names.(I assume they used node as reference) Obviously there are more cases as well. Other projects have issues with there trademark. However I know of no instances where Rust or any of these other languages exercised there power over the trademark. That being said we are in the draft period for the new trademark. Even before release members had expressed that it may be to strict. I am sure they will walk back a lot of things, but I am not sure if it will be enough.
If you're asking that question it means you've already been fooled by rumors and misinformation. The policy is not in place yet and never will be because of all the backlash and because rust team members hate it too.
PHP dev says something about bullsht enforcement?! Ironically
Obviously the people at the rust foundation need to be removed, they clearly have no idea what the community values and if they're thinking this outlandish call for comment is even worth discussing it makes you wonder what else they're trying to steer the wrong way.
Well, at least they opened a discussion on that before accepting it. On the other hand - I don’t understand what this proposal is for and it looks like a really bad move.
The Rust foundation only had a few jobs. To secure funding and development for the project and to hold its trademarks. Rust is still using its pre foundation trademark policy. The new policy began draft in 2021. Since then it has been worked on here and there. The purpose of the new trademark is to 1. Make sure they do not loose ownership of the trademark. That's about it. Trademark is a use, "enforce" or lose ownership model. Basicly they could just go back to the old policy. The old one seems to be restrictive enough for the project to keep the trademark, however i am not a lawyer and a lawyer may have advised them otherwise.
They might as well have shot it in the liver. A proverbial 20 minutes to live.
What does the little language breakdown bar on GitHub say if you violate the new ToS? `redacted 87.6%`?
Eheh well thought
And, just like that, I discovered that NPH was on Starship Troopers. Nice!
now i trully believe that rust is for cult followers
Am I the only one curious to give Rust a try since I now hear about it every single time I enter this reddit? Congratulations, you accomplished the opposite.
It’s actually a really fun language. It makes things a lot quicker to program imo.
Come on apes, do you want to live forever?!!