Sections
* Rust trademark policy
* Impact on free software projects

# Rust trademark policy

Is Rust not free software because of the Rust trademark policy? <https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedom_flaws>

Information on the four software freedoms is here: <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html>.

The trademark section of the Rust readme file <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/README.md> says:

```
The Rust programming language is an open source, community project
governed by a core team. It is also sponsored by the Mozilla Foundation (“Mozilla”), which owns and protects the Rust and Cargo trademarks and logos (the “Rust Trademarks”).

If you want to use these names or brands, please read the media guide.
```
Note that it says that the Mozilla Foundation owns the Rust and Cargo trademarks.

The is the media guide linked to in the trademark section of the Rust
readme file:
<https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide>

The sections of <https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide> that
look relevant to this question at hand are:

* The "Trademark policy" section says "most commercial uses require
permission". This appears to interfere with "The freedom to run the
program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).".

* The "Uses that require explicit approval" section 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.". This appears to interfere with
"The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3).".

<https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide> says "This document is
not an official statement of Mozilla trademark policy, but serves to
clarify Mozilla’s trademark policy as it relates to Rust.".

Niko said in <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53287#issuecomment-414472372>
"You are correct that we intended the trademark to apply when
distributing a package or other binary called "Rust" -- and in
particular that if modifications are made, then we would expect a
trademark request". This appears to interfere with:
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3).

When I asked about this in #hyperbola@Freenode I was referred to <https://github.com/rust-lang/foundation-faq-2020/issues/35>. This open
issue on the Rust repository issue tracker shows that this is a current
issue. In the issue nikomatsakis said "The foundation will be reviewing
the trademark policy, but it will be up to the board to decide the terms
that are selected."

# Impact on free software projects

If Rust is not free software then that would impact many free software
project.

One example is Linux. Recently there was a RFC for adding support for
Rust to the Linux kernel <https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1023>. Linus Torvalds's response is here <https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1099>.
This would also impact Linux forks such as Linux-libre.

Another example is Firefox. <https://servo.org/> says "Servo is written
in Rust, and shares code with Mozilla Firefox". This would also impact
Firefox forks such as LibreWolf, IceCat and Tor browser.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

After further reading on the topic and after receiving addition
feedback I have written an update to my understanding of the Rust
trademark issue. <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2021-06/msg00000.html>

Bone Baboon writes:

Sections
* Rust trademark policy
* Impact on free software projects

# Rust trademark policy

Is Rust not free software because of the Rust trademark policy? <https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedom_flaws>

Information on the four software freedoms is here: <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html>.

The trademark section of the Rust readme file <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/README.md> says:

```
The Rust programming language is an open source, community project
governed by a core team. It is also sponsored by the Mozilla Foundation (“Mozilla”), which owns and protects the Rust and Cargo trademarks and logos (the “Rust Trademarks”).

If you want to use these names or brands, please read the media guide.
```
Note that it says that the Mozilla Foundation owns the Rust and Cargo trademarks.

The is the media guide linked to in the trademark section of the Rust
readme file:
<https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide>

The sections of <https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide> that
look relevant to this question at hand are:

* The "Trademark policy" section says "most commercial uses require
permission". This appears to interfere with "The freedom to run the
program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).".

* The "Uses that require explicit approval" section 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.". This appears to interfere with
"The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3).".

<https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide> says "This document is
not an official statement of Mozilla trademark policy, but serves to
clarify Mozilla’s trademark policy as it relates to Rust.".

Niko said in <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53287#issuecomment-414472372>
"You are correct that we intended the trademark to apply when
distributing a package or other binary called "Rust" -- and in
particular that if modifications are made, then we would expect a
trademark request". This appears to interfere with:
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3).

When I asked about this in #hyperbola@Freenode I was referred to <https://github.com/rust-lang/foundation-faq-2020/issues/35>. This open issue on the Rust repository issue tracker shows that this is a current issue. In the issue nikomatsakis said "The foundation will be reviewing
the trademark policy, but it will be up to the board to decide the terms
that are selected."

# Impact on free software projects

If Rust is not free software then that would impact many free software project.

One example is Linux. Recently there was a RFC for adding support for
Rust to the Linux kernel <https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1023>. Linus Torvalds's response is here <https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1099>.
This would also impact Linux forks such as Linux-libre.

Another example is Firefox. <https://servo.org/> says "Servo is written
in Rust, and shares code with Mozilla Firefox". This would also impact Firefox forks such as LibreWolf, IceCat and Tor browser.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Walter Landry writes:

Bone Baboon writes:

* The "Uses that require explicit approval" section 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.". This appears to interfere with
"The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3).".

This is more or less the same exact problem that caused Debian to rename Firefox to Iceweasel. Eventually, Debian convinced Mozilla to allow
Debian to use Firefox to refer to the modified versions that Debian distributes.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006

Thank you for sharing that link.

Ideally, Debian would get a similar dispensation for Rust.

A better outcome than getting as Debian specific dispensation would be
for the Rust trademark policy to be modified to resolve this issue or to
rename Rust and Cargo when distributing copies or modified versions.

Getting a Debian specific dispensation for Rust would not appear to meet
The Debian Free Software Guidelines specifically 8 License Must Not Be
Specific to Debian.

The Debian Free Software Guidelines section 8 License Must Not Be
Specific to Debian:

```
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian
and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of
the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed
should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction
with the Debian system.
```

In <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006>:

```
Mozilla recognizes that patches applied to Iceweasel/Firefox don't
impact the quality of the product.
Patches which should be reported upstream to improve the product always
have been forward upstream by the Debian packagers. Mozilla agrees about specific patches to facilitate the support of Iceweasel on architecture supported by Debian or Debian-specific patches.

More generally, Mozilla trusts the Debian packagers to use their best
judgment to achieve the same quality as the official Firefox binaries.

In case of derivatives of Debian, Firefox branding can be used as long
as the patches applied are in the same category as described above.
Ubuntu having a different packaging, this does not apply to that
distribution.
```

This appears to be in contradiction to "8 License Must Not Be Specific
to Debian". The key issue is that the Rust trademark policy is trying
to add further distribution restrictions on copies and modified version
that the license does not have. In this way the trademark is acting
like additional terms to the license with the disadvantage of not being
well documented and being poorly understood as they have not been
reviewed by the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bone Baboon writes:

After further reading on the topic and after receiving addition
feedback I have written an update to my understanding of the Rust
trademark issue. <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2021-06/msg00000.html>

The Free Software Foundation's licensing team will be taking a serious
look at the Rust trademark policy issue (no time frame was given). <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2021-06/msg00001.html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bone Baboon writes:

Sections
* Rust trademark policy
* Impact on free software projects

# Rust trademark policy

The conversation about the Rust Trademark policy issue has been
happening on several mailing lists and in different IRC channels. I
decided to write a new summary that bringing it all together, adds new information and cleans it up.

The summary is located at <https://bonebaboon.tilde.site/rust-trademark-policy-issue/>.

The Git repository for the summary that can be cloned is at <https://bonebaboon.tilde.site/git/rust-trademark-policy-issue.git>.

There is also a website for browsing the source code at <https://bonebaboon.tilde.site/git/rust-trademark-policy-issue/>.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)