I feel like a fool for learning - let alone advocating - Rust to this point. The "great resign" is merely one year ago and the foundation has learned nothing. It is reasonable for any organization to protect against misrepresentation, but this proposal is overshooting so far that I could not even take it serious at first. Some of my favorites:
- They try to trademark the words "Rust" and "Cargo" which are common words in the English language
- You can not use "rust" in your domain name(?!), course name, video name, whatever, unless approved by the foundation
- Trying to impose a "Rust Foundation" approved CoC to all on- and off-line communities or events revolving around the language (the language, not foundation!)
- All off-line events about Rust need to ban their participants from carrying firearms
- Overrule any existing fair-use rights by prohibiting any modification (other than scaling) to the logo
- You need to constantly state that you are not affiliated or endorsed by the Rust Foundation when talking about the language (e.g. you want to write a tutorial, book or even answer on Stack Overflow?)
Needless to say that most, if not all, of those rules will be impossible to enforce. The foundation can try by spending all their funds and energy to fight lawsuits because some kid in India used "Rust" in their domain name or a bunch of rednecks hold a conference with guns in their pockets, but that time and energy could be better used elsewhere.
This proposal shows perfectly everything that is wrong with Rust: The "Foundation" and language need to be separated completely. This board consists of some self-proclaimed experts with questionable backgrounds who are hindering adaption and alienate the community by living out yet another ideology-driven power trip. At this point it does not matter if the proposal gets passed, which I doubt, or undergoes a complete rewrite as the damage is already done and the foundation has shown their ugly face to the community. This is their third strike in a row and I doubt that the important steps towards industry adoption (like integration to the Linux kernel) will be unaffected - all thrown out of the window because someone on this board could not endure the idea of people hosting independent events about the language.
"comply with local health regulations". Do you know who is responsible for making sure that we comply with local health regulations? Local health authorities. Just like you don't need to say "killing people is not allowed at our events", you also don't need to say that we need to follow local regulations. If an event doesn't follow local health regulations, call local health authorities, they can enforce it much better than The Foundation.
Carrying firearms? Even though I can't find a legit reason for bringing firearms to the event, it's still not the responsibility of foundation 5 thousand miles away from me to decide this, let my state / country, and event host decide what is allowed.
Code of conducts are also just a waste of time. If someone wants to be an a-hole, good luck stopping them with "it's in the CoC that you must not say that". I don't need the CoC to notice bad behavior and the CoC gives you nothing useful for stopping real abuse / racism at events.
This draft has to be canceled. It forbids some established naming conventions and project logo branding. It also gives the Foundation the power and responsibility to approve or disapprove other communities’ logos based on the Foundation’s political beliefs, which is not what the Foundation should do.
As an average enjoyer of the Rust language, I’m really concerned about the draft. I can almost foresee forks to be made just to circumvent these trademark issues, which would certainly hurt the community.
You need look at NOT the changes but the root cause of it to understand why this could be happening. Most of these wordings looks like a corporate stuff. And that is exactly what this looks like.
Rust is a Non-profit 501(c)(*6*) foundation and *NOT* 501(c)(3) which is what you probably expect when you hear or say the word _non-profit_. A 501(c)(6) non-profit is to look after the common interests of the members involved. It is non-profit. But the money pooled in are for the interests of it's members. Meaning Rust Foundation's corporate members.
I don't know the people who wrote it, but my guess is this is at least one of the reasons. I am honestly guessing some of the weird ones will be reverted and this is because of a misunderstanding because of the people involved (Probably some legal team?). Obviously, I could be wrong here.
---
A non-profit 501(c)(3) organisation on the other hand is for public charity, public interest and things like that. They are more likely to be community oriented than a (c)(6). Python foundation and Zig foundation are non-profit 501(c)(3). In operating systems, Linux Foundation (which controls Node.js and other projects) is a 501(c)(6) as well. While FreeBSD is a non-profit 501(c)(3).
Ideally we want projects which have a non-profit 501(c)(3) organisation to flourish cos they exists for the community first even if corporate companies are heavily involved.
Implies that project names like rust-bitcoin are not allowed, unless they are developed by Rust foundation. This is a very bad decision for Rust adoption, completely out of touch. Did they just retain a corporate lawyer?
Even IF they don't go forward with this...who's going to guarantee to a developer/maintainer/company who want to build stuff in/with/for "The crab language" that this isn't going to happen again?
This is so counterproductive. I hope the Rust Foundation and the Rust Project change their minds and take a more reasonable route.
Protecting against misrepresentation is completely understandable, but forbidding any common and reasonable use just because of it is so counterproductive.
> From today through April 16, we invite you to review the current draft of the updated Rust Trademark Policy and share any feedback you might have using this form.
So, what do I answer someone who I try to recommend the language with a crab as a logo to for a project (like a PO, CTO, customer, student, colleague), who then points at that draft?
This proposal shows perfectly everything that is wrong with Rust: The "Foundation" and language need to be separated completely. This board consists of some self-proclaimed experts with questionable backgrounds who are hindering adaption and alienate the community by living out yet another ideology-driven power trip. At this point it does not matter if the proposal gets passed, which I doubt, or undergoes a complete rewrite as the damage is already done and the foundation has shown their ugly face to the community. This is their third strike in a row and I doubt that the important steps towards industry adoption (like integration to the Linux kernel) will be unaffected - all thrown out of the window because someone on this board could not endure the idea of people hosting independent events about the language.