This is obviously very knee-jerk and will either die or end up creating the same bureaucracy that Rust has. People love to complain about bureaucracy without understanding it exists for many reasons. The Rust teams are far more equipped to handle the development of Rust than anyone entertaining this fork (unless, of course, a significant number of members of the Rust teams decide to move over).
As a form of protest against the silly Rust Foundation, a fork of the language which is simply a rebranded mirror of Rust sources would work.
Jokes aside, good to see this fork.
So as long as the foundation changes their mind I really don’t think they‘ve done anything wrong, and anyone who’s said “the Rust foundation is trademarking the name ‘Rust’” or “the Rust foundation has trademarked the name ‘Rust’” overreacted.
If they listen to all this feedback and still move forward with the trademark, then they’re truly awful, since they, the leaders of this “community-driven organization”. just ignored 90% of the community. But that hasn’t happened yet, in fact all they’ve done is actively “seek community input” by publishing this draft.
Just to clarify: Rust, Cargo and Clippy have already been registered as trademarks for some time now (AFAIK originally by Mozilla, with ownership transfered to the Rust Foundation upon its creation).
There is also an existing trademark policy, with the draft concerning an update to it.
The proposed policy is terrible and based on the reaction of the people behind the proposal, they are fully determined to go through with it, which, to me, was very disheartening.
I see that a small part of the Rust community would love to blame it all on "Youtubers and streamers" without actually addressing any of their points.
The community, including many (not just a few) prominent members, gave detailed feedback on all the channels (see blogs, reddit, twitter and yt), and the only "rebuttal" of their points I hear is "stop the FUD", "you are not a lawyer so shut up", and "streamers drama".
They all made specific points with the reasoning explained. If the reasoning was somehow invalid, you sure didn't show how.
No samples, no documentation, vague reference to "plant fungus"?
So they don't dare say the name to avoid any chance of being sued.
Not that it's actually likely, but the point is that the document is that bad, so IF you take it at it's word, then well that's how it evaluates out, is the only way to be safe is just don't use the actual logo or name at all. Anything else you do technically runs afoul of at least one of the many terms and conditions in there.
https://portal.ct.gov/CAES/Fact-Sheets/Plant-Pathology/Cedar... "As many as 7.5 million spores may be produced in a single gall and these spores have been known to be carried as far as 6 miles."
A reminder that the Debian project found it necessary to fork Firefox into Iceweasel for a very similar reason.
> Our main goal is to ensure that the community has an alternative that aligns with their values and desire for unrestricted use.
How is the use restricted nowadays ?
Moreover, wouldn't it be better to help the gcc's rust front end ? GNU will protect the community for sure.
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?
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."
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.
* A community fork of a language named after a plant fungus. All of the memory-safe features you love, now with 100% less bureaucracy! *
I assumed with the 'oxide' and 'ferrous' references that Rust's etymology had to do with corrosion, and while that's part of the explanation, it's mostly about fungi [1]
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16494822/why-is-it-calle...
Which doesn’t make sense given oxidization slowly robs something of its durability. But Discord is named using a word that means “disagreement and lack of harmony” so I kind of look past weird branding in tech.
Again, the moment the Rust Foundation chose to be a 501(c)(6) it was all going to go downhill from there as I and others have warned about this [1] years before.
There is a good reason why other language foundations like Python Software Foundation, NumFocus (Julia lang), D Language Foundation, Zig Software Foundation, R Foundation, etc, are 501(c)(3).
But anyway, the details of how a non-profit is created have a lot of impact on the incentives for their managers.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-mess-with-crabo-you-get-a...
And let's not pretend that it is anything other than a lighthearted joke.
That's it. Everyone loses, the Rust foundation, the Rust users, and the people who don't care about any of them.
4.1.3 Statements about compatibility, interoperability or derivation
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. Some other examples that may work for you are:
[Your software] is written in the Rust language
[Your software] can compile software written in Rust
[Your software] can be used in the Rust compiler toolchain
[Your software] is based on the official Rust compiler
And I don't think CrabLang will be allowed to just copy the Rust logo.
I might have tried "Trust".
Contributors won't want to work on the whatever the "inferior" version is.
What about attribution?