Packages

  • Status In Progress
  • Percent Complete
    50%
  • Task Type Freedom Issue
  • Category Any
  • Assigned To
    André Silva
  • Operating System All
  • Severity Critical
  • Priority Very High
  • Reported Version Any
  • Due in Version Starfix
  • Due Date Undecided
  • Votes
  • Private
Attached to Project: Packages
Opened by Luke - 14/05/2018
Last edited by André Silva - 12/08/2018

FS#736 - [rust][cargo] trademark agreement affects user freedom

Uses that require explicit approval
Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo package manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written permission from the Rust core team. We will usually allow these uses as long as the modifications are (1) relatively small and (2) very clearly communicated to end-users.
Selling t-shirts, hats, and other artwork or merchandise requires explicit, written permission from the Rust core team. We will usually allow these uses as long as (1) it is clearly communicated that the merchandise is not in any way an official part of the Rust project and (2) it is clearly communicated whether profits benefit the Rust project.
Using the Rust trademarks within another trademark requires written permission from the Rust core team except as described above.

Since it violates the freedom to redistribute without “explicit” approval, this is a freedom issue.

winter commented on 16.05.2018 14:27

It seems to me the easiest solution would be, to change the name of rust and remove the non-free bits and be done with it.

Notice how it says, Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo package manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written permission from the Rust core team.

Especially notice, the part where it says CALLING IT RUST OR CARGO Meaning you can distribute a modified version just not if it is called rust or cargo.

You can still modify it as long as you don't call it rust or cargo and then distribute it.

Anyways though, that is what I would do. ;)

Admin
André Silva commented on 16.05.2018 14:45
It seems to me the easiest solution would be, to change the name of rust and remove the non-free bits and be done with it.

It include change logos too :)

Anyways though, that is what I would do. ;)

If you would do it, please let me know, since we could get a forked version to be used for our future packages that we need. Anyway, we should re-patch our packages to work against it too. (eg. future browsers that will need our re-forked cargo/rust as dependencies)

winter commented on 16.05.2018 20:34

Does it include change logos also?

As for if I would do it, I don't have enough experience yet with programming. I know more about the command line than anything. But not much else.

ps, Why would future browsers be an issue with regard to rust/cargo? I doubt your supporting any form of firefox quantum. So yeah...

ps, if you did add rust/cargo, modified without the trademarks/name(s), could you put in the description what it actually is? Just wondered. If so, it seems like it would be easy to fix. :)

winter commented on 24.05.2018 20:46

PS, What will you do about thunderbird/icedove... when the time comes for it to be based off of, firefox esr 60...

winter commented on 27.05.2018 04:06

Well, I still think you could include it as long as it isn't called rust/cargo modified of course,

But yeah, your call.

Jean Louis commented on 01.06.2018 13:32

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/b1363a73ede57ae595f3a1be2bb75d308ba4f7f6

There is no notice in Github that is subject of this thread. I wrote full explanation but system said "wrong token", that was my waste of time.

Jean Louis commented on 01.06.2018 13:39

References:
https://opensource.com/law/10/8/can-programming-language-names-be-trademarks https://secureyourtrademark.com/can-you-trademark/trademark-name-programming-language/

So in referring to "rust programming language" there is no trademark infringement at all.

Programming language is not software.

Software may be implementation of programming language.

RUST is indeed registered trademark:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:840haz.2.8

But so is GNU as well.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:840haz.3.7

But they are giving anybody the rights to use it:

by MIT License:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/b1363a73ede57ae595f3a1be2bb75d308ba4f7f6/LICENSE-MIT

by Apache License:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/b1363a73ede57ae595f3a1be2bb75d308ba4f7f6/LICENSE-APACHE

Further in their Github repository I could not find the trademark notice that is subject of this thread.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/b1363a73ede57ae595f3a1be2bb75d308ba4f7f6

So I think that trademark notice is outdated.

Further I think that it cannot be enforced. Rust is free software and distributed by those licenses.

They gave up their trademark rights by publishing it under those licenses.

Simply package from Github where there is no such trademark notice, and keep rust in Hyperbola.

Jean

winter commented on 11.06.2018 15:09

Interesting... so then such a problem is not even an issue.

Wouldn't have expected that.

Admin
André Silva commented on 12.08.2018 12:22
So I think that trademark notice is outdated.

The programming language is trademark free, but the trademark is "Rust", so it should be rebranded. Same case for Cargo, it is a package manager that is trademark free, but the trademark is "Cargo" and should be rebranded too.

To avoid trademark issue it is the way, instead of Rust and Cargo it should be... some other name.

Jean Louis commented on 12.08.2018 13:53

André, your comment sounds like you have not fully read my reasoning.

Trademarks can be and exist! That is not a problem. Problem is in permissions of their usage. For example GNU is trademark, and you are using GNU trademark in Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre – and FSF is fine with it as it serves the purpose of free software.

NUMBER ONE: investigate! Because in their Github repository THERE IS NO ANY ISSUE on using trademark Rust, so I gave you the link.

There is clear explanation in the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007, as it is given on this link of rust:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/b1363a73ede57ae595f3a1be2bb75d308ba4f7f6/src/etc/third-party/COPYING3

that:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

...cut...

e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

BUT the case is so that they currently DO NOT DECLINE to grant rights to trademark.

For this to investigate, open up issue on Github, and ask them, or tell me to do it.

Jean Louis commented on 12.08.2018 14:14
Notice how it says, Distributing a modified
> version of the Rust programming language or the
> Cargo package manager and calling it Rust or
> Cargo requires explicit, written permission from
> the Rust core team.
Especially notice, the part where it says CALLING
> IT RUST OR CARGO Meaning you can distribute a
> modified version just not if it is called rust or
> cargo.

Trademark issue does not mean it is non-free
software.

Reference:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/b1363a73ede57ae595f3a1be2bb75d308ba4f7f6/src/etc/third-party/COPYING3

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this
License with terms:

e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

And RUST trademark have that policy on trademarks,
but please don't call it "non-free" as according
to GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 3, 29 June
2007, that is one way to restrict usage of
tradmarks.

Finally, they are distributing Rust programming
language WITHOUT trademark issues, because
trademark policy is on separate website, it is not
on distribution website (Github).

And there is another issue that trademarks have
their territorial validity. One trademark
registered in US, does not apply to all
countries.

It can be perfectly valid to distribute it.

Overall I think it is no issue.

Jean

Admin
Luke commented on 12.08.2018 17:01

I'm quite sure Mozilla won't be happy with us applying patches to their trademarked language without "explicit approval".

Let's find out once and for all. Filed the bug upstream where it matters.

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53287

Date User Effort (H:M)

Loading...

Available keyboard shortcuts

Tasklist

Task Details

Task Editing