Rebranding Rust compiler is extremely unpractical -- can't easily exercise freedom 3

[mimi89999]

Hello,

Rust trademark policy states that:

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.

While Rust license allows to distribute modified copies and grants freedom 3, Rust trademark policy prohibits that. This makes it very impractical to exercise freedom 3. Even if somebody makes minor changes, they will need to rebrand the entire compiler and build tools. That's a huge work. Some distributions have issues with that: https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedom_flaws. The free software community has doubts if Rust compiler and Cargo can be considered free software or not because it's ND by rebranding impracticability.

I think that all branding should be defined in one file or folder making it easy for somebody who wants to distribute modified copies to rebrand. Firefox has the same trademark policy as Rust, but they at least make it relatively easy to rebrand the browser: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/branding/unofficial

[est31]

The trademarks rust and cargo also appear in many places in the interface, like through Cargo.toml or rustc and cargo binary names, or in RUST_BACKTRACE, various env vars that cargo sets etc.

IMO once a foundation is set up, the trademark policy should be changed to be more tolerant towards this.

[FrostKnight]

I would also like this trademark issue resolved, as it is too restrictive to include in some linux distros. :/

Please fix! :)

[Semisol]

Bump on this.

[programmerjake]

ping

[Dylan-DPC]

Closing this as the trademark policy is being tracked in another issue and it's better there than leaving an old issue open hoping someöne spots it.

[FrostKnight]

Closing this as the trademark policy is being tracked in another issue and it's better there than leaving an old issue open hoping someöne spots it.

Can you tell me which issue it is being tracked on? I am curious to follow the progress of it. To know if it will be fixed.

[irelativism]

The issue you locked and closed has well @Dylan-DPC, and if that is the case why you mark it has "not-planned" this is just political games at its best

[FrostKnight]

I just wonder why the rust foundation has to make rebranding rust compiler so hard. That's not solving anything nor is it a solution to anything. It just seems like trademark bullying to prevent modified versions out of sheer megalomaniacal desires . I hope that irelativism turns out to be wrong about what is happening. But i have my doubts. I hope to be wrong though.

[irelativism]

Also there is claims of "speculation" when the valid argument and explanation would be shared this would just be deleted or censored, not to speak on issue #93157 everything is explained in great detail, the issue remains has allways with the obnoxious commercial clause that has its root on the mozzila media guide.