Rust Foundation Shares Draft of New, Simpler Trademark Policy (rust-lang.org)
(Sunday November 10, 2024 @11:34AM (EditorDavid)
from the Rust-never-sleeps dept.)
- Reference: 0175441881
- News link: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/24/11/10/0358239/rust-foundation-shares-draft-of-new-simpler-trademark-policy
- Source link: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/rust-trademark-policy-updates/
"The Rust trademark policy has been updated and [1]a new draft is available to view," [2]announced the Rust Foundation this week.
The last proposed trademark policy (in April of 2023) was criticized by open source advocate Bruce Perens [3]in The Register as "far awry of fair use which is legally permitted." The Rust Foundation says this new version has "incorporated a number of suggestions from the Rust community," in a blog post that summarizes the feedback and enumerates specific ways it's been addressed:
> 1. We primarily plan to lean on community reports for enforcement and have no intention of spending our limited resources policing the work of small creators.
>
> 2. We have removed the non-legal language summary and instead have clarified wording throughout as best we can while keeping the policy valid.
>
> 3. The Rust trademark does not cover use of the word "Rust" in general and instead pertains to its use in relevant technical settings.
>
> 4. We have updated the logo usage policy. Color modifications are allowed.
>
> 5. The non-endorsement rule is about managing perception of official affiliation with the Foundation and Rust Project, and is thus subjective.
>
> 6. We removed restrictions on the use of "Rust" and "Cargo" in package names. The crates prefixes "rust-" and "cargo-" are no longer reserved to the Rust Project.
>
> 7. We will usually allow the community to use the marks on limited merchandise (more details in the updated draft)....
>
> [T]he central purpose of these updates is to empower all Rustaceans to engage with the Rust language ecosystem more confidently. As a final step in this process, we invite you to review the updated policy and share any blocking concerns you might have... Thank you to everyone who weighed in with helpful suggestions on the initial trademark policy draft we shared. The level of engagement and passion within the Rust community is inspiring to all of us at the Rust Foundation.
The [4]tech news site Heise Online writes "It is noticeable that the language is much clearer and dispenses with a lot of legal jargon," in a piece which argues the new draft "should calm the waves and create clarity."
> The new draft is not only formulated more simply, but is also significantly shorter. Some restrictions have been softened in the new rules or have disappeared completely...
>
> Meanwhile, the Foundation has also adapted its logo so that it is clear which logo stands for the programming language and which for the Foundation. The use of the name Rust is explicitly permitted to identify projects that are either written in the programming language or are compatible with it...
>
> Before the new trademark rules come into force, the Rust Foundation is collecting feedback on the current draft. The web form is open until November 20, 2024.
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hjTx11Fb-4W7RQLmp3R8BLDACc7zxIpG/view?usp=sharing
[2] https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/rust-trademark-policy-updates/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/17/rust_foundation_apologizes_trademark_policy/
[4] https://www.heise.de/en/news/Rust-Trademark-New-draft-should-calm-the-waves-and-create-clarity-10008202.html
The last proposed trademark policy (in April of 2023) was criticized by open source advocate Bruce Perens [3]in The Register as "far awry of fair use which is legally permitted." The Rust Foundation says this new version has "incorporated a number of suggestions from the Rust community," in a blog post that summarizes the feedback and enumerates specific ways it's been addressed:
> 1. We primarily plan to lean on community reports for enforcement and have no intention of spending our limited resources policing the work of small creators.
>
> 2. We have removed the non-legal language summary and instead have clarified wording throughout as best we can while keeping the policy valid.
>
> 3. The Rust trademark does not cover use of the word "Rust" in general and instead pertains to its use in relevant technical settings.
>
> 4. We have updated the logo usage policy. Color modifications are allowed.
>
> 5. The non-endorsement rule is about managing perception of official affiliation with the Foundation and Rust Project, and is thus subjective.
>
> 6. We removed restrictions on the use of "Rust" and "Cargo" in package names. The crates prefixes "rust-" and "cargo-" are no longer reserved to the Rust Project.
>
> 7. We will usually allow the community to use the marks on limited merchandise (more details in the updated draft)....
>
> [T]he central purpose of these updates is to empower all Rustaceans to engage with the Rust language ecosystem more confidently. As a final step in this process, we invite you to review the updated policy and share any blocking concerns you might have... Thank you to everyone who weighed in with helpful suggestions on the initial trademark policy draft we shared. The level of engagement and passion within the Rust community is inspiring to all of us at the Rust Foundation.
The [4]tech news site Heise Online writes "It is noticeable that the language is much clearer and dispenses with a lot of legal jargon," in a piece which argues the new draft "should calm the waves and create clarity."
> The new draft is not only formulated more simply, but is also significantly shorter. Some restrictions have been softened in the new rules or have disappeared completely...
>
> Meanwhile, the Foundation has also adapted its logo so that it is clear which logo stands for the programming language and which for the Foundation. The use of the name Rust is explicitly permitted to identify projects that are either written in the programming language or are compatible with it...
>
> Before the new trademark rules come into force, the Rust Foundation is collecting feedback on the current draft. The web form is open until November 20, 2024.
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hjTx11Fb-4W7RQLmp3R8BLDACc7zxIpG/view?usp=sharing
[2] https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/rust-trademark-policy-updates/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/17/rust_foundation_apologizes_trademark_policy/
[4] https://www.heise.de/en/news/Rust-Trademark-New-draft-should-calm-the-waves-and-create-clarity-10008202.html
Thank you (Score:3)
by PPH ( 736903 )
> 3. The Rust trademark does not cover use of the word "Rust" in general and instead pertains to its use in relevant technical settings.
My pickup truck thanks you.
I'd settle for a secondary syntax (Score:2)
by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )
The learning curve for the Rust syntax is needlessly high. I honestly believe that it was made this way in order to avoid C++ simply adding the features that Rust touts as being irreplaceable and leaving Rust to die off. The only people that care about the Rust trademark policy are the people using Rust. What about trying to make it easier for people to actually use Rust?
Re: (Score:2)
by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
> The learning curve for the Rust syntax is needlessly high. I honestly believe that it was made this way in order to avoid C++ simply adding the features that Rust touts as being irreplaceable
I'm not saying you're wrong, but how would it do that, especially if the syntax is bad? What would stop someone adding the same functionality to C++, with better syntax, and hookers?
Reasonable (vs. Celebrity) (Score:3)
Its quite refreshing reading about an organization looking to relax enforcement and ensure fair use.
If Taylor Swift Inc. was in charge of this, a planet would be forced to come up with a new word to describe what happens to metal when it deteriorates. In 47 languages.