Firstly sorry for the formality of the post but today, I took the time to examine the new Rust Trademark Policy, which can be accessed through the ...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
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 is.
Rust foundation is registered in US and 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 meant to be community oriented or for the public. 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.
I see, this explains a lot, hopefully they revert most of the community breaking ones, specially the ones with the name and logo.
And the events one is a weird one as well, but I guess having all events not for profit sounds fine.
I think it is certainly a bad sign that they are more concerned with the protection of their brand than with the development of the language.
I think that's a false dichotomy (fallacy of bifurcation). They can be equally concerned about the protection of the brand and the development of the language at the same time. The existence of one concern doesn't necessarily negate the other.
I read through the policy and don't see anything that concerns me.
I cannot find proof of this assertion:
The context of that assertion makes me think that Afonso meant "must not be larger". That policy makes sense to me ... the hosting site's logo and marks should be more prominent (as the policy indicates) than Rust's marks and logos. After all, you'd be "advertising" your brand/product/etc. and Rust is simply a component of that.
It is an observation, not a dichotomy. In addition, just because they can do both at the same time does not necessarily mean that they will do both at the same time.
The second assertion you address is not from me.
I apologize for being too lazy to write two comments. I know that quote was from the original author.
As to your initial comment:
That is a claim not an observation, one wherein you are attributing intent, specifically comparative intent.
You're right. The claim is based on an observation. However, you haven't addressed the second part of my criticism of your fallacy fallacy.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It seemed like you were presenting a complex issue in terms of two inherently opposed sides: "They are either more concerned with A or they are more concerned with B." You presented no other options. That is a typical false dichotomy.
Actually I didn't present any other options, but made a comparison.
Totally agree with you. If we as content contributors get a bad feeling when we come up with a blog post about RUST, we will stop publishing articles about it.
Having content about a technology from individuals is the best thing that could happen to that particular technology. If the team thinks they've no need for that... Okay! Then I'll switch back to Go, or look into Zig...
The paragraph about the website design is also crazy... Does that imply that I cant use
mdBookanymore?I think you can still use it as long as the logo is smaller than the one of your page...
I think Rust Foundation has hired overly cautious lawyer and they went totally insane with "we must protect our trademark or we will lose it".
They should be much more cool about using the word Rust and the logo.
I hope they revise the rules to be a lot more relaxed.
Something like "you cannot modify the logo but you can use unmodified logo to refer to the standard version of Rust language as long as you clearly signal that content or product is not enforced by the Rust Foundation. You may request official enforcement status which may about having to show the disclaimer is granted."
The Rust Trademark Policy is a set of guidelines and rules established by the Rust programming language community to protect and manage the Rust trademark. It defines the permitted uses of the Rust trademark and aims to prevent unauthorized or misleading uses that could create confusion or dilute the value of the Rust brand.
Trademark policies are common among open-source projects and programming languages to maintain the integrity and reputation of their brands. They help ensure that the language and its associated projects are used consistently and appropriately, and they provide a framework for addressing potential issues related to trademark infringement or misuse.
Trademark policies can sometimes generate discussions or debates within the community, as different individuals may have different perspectives on the balance between brand protection and freedom of use. It's important for such policies to be transparent, fair, and aligned with the community's values to foster a healthy and collaborative environment.
If you have specific questions or concerns about the Rust Trademark Policy, it's recommended to review the official policy document and engage with the Rust community to gather a variety of viewpoints on the matter.
I can summarize my opnion quite simply. I have been teaching the language which a crab mascot promotes for quite a while in my programming languages course. However, now that the name of the language is a potential area of legal exposure, I have decided to discontinue the practice and destroy all of the classroom materials I have created surrounding the language.
There are plenty of worthy languages that fill this space which I can mention, both in praise and criticism, without fear of legal reprecussions. So the new systems language that I will be teaching as "the potential future of systems programming" will henceforth be Zig.
That's approximately 300 people per year that will no longer be taught about the language which must not be named.