From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 4I2jOToCxWBGrgAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:51:38 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id SCJbNToCxWDfTAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:51:38 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC072C75F for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:51:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:50308 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ls8jI-00070Y-EL for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:51:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47726) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ls8j8-00070A-Pt for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:51:26 -0400 Received: from knopi.disroot.org ([178.21.23.139]:36408) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ls8j5-0006yC-Rm; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:51:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by disroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AF25BE7E; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:51:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at disroot.org Received: from knopi.disroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (disroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FTyWuBWqERz8; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:51:17 +0200 (CEST) References: <87bl90byqf.fsf@disroot.org> <87k0nlsh0c.fsf@gnu.org> <87sg1y94kl.fsf@disroot.org> <87fsxsh5p9.fsf@gnu.org> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail; t=1623523876; bh=g7iWvNRPegJN47Ncou1YgLgNwVJLzk8SaG61XtKZzgk=; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=kyI+FOCZfLnktxHqSIj35xArV3gN1LFXptmzsXoBhwuGGiJm8kPPHcHf8tOjQ1Bvv QRzgM/2MeD3VhYIr3U4RG/8T1rZkNMGH5Fe34BS1xeBVj2B5xslsxMUBzADbJNsmIG Y22tPBXysv98NfSgUrhCs4HKrgP0FueQ4emMh33JosamYo01UF00pvVDsU0Otftr4S 9P1dwWsnByG8rvJvJhWCXcIt3InZjU0bRs+yt2itmvyj37IPa7+TARnNj050cyDu6j j/ntDCZMUPwFxS0t/qAN2c+DGidQjO3PrGeOT8FfWzf3D003h/p+iVpYjTYJJ0iUaJ +xvbu9Sa3oaMg== From: Bone Baboon To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Rust freedom issue claim In-reply-to: <87fsxsh5p9.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:49:21 -0400 Message-ID: <87im2i7wb2.fsf@disroot.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=178.21.23.139; envelope-from=bone.baboon@disroot.org; helo=knopi.disroot.org X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1623523898; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=RITvVG81q0ct7GZ6KM94XVCiIJmA7euzbt/PxKRbFoU=; b=qUW0DVZYUb2oueC5wWwRvlGUj49yYCT6tjzkm0qkoXcJ7xUfv0NcOaVpMjSzKA+q1tMka/ 4RiIpHRBqmLhkp/sjW8st/sFtmj3RMibHbaVbCMi+FCfpt99oJKVQBbOXlZyabPdcbJmri cJYy/NWHwYOr1wCFcJcpQNaVDhAP3cifLQZO5OMKQPCMq6Nnpdti1y5XExjkExhB6I6U7g CPpyDJBCljim0U7Wv0jY8bCMZFAuA4KwivlMru+pv6XtGnILewd3PDcGPH9rMwZpR83YEn PiO9XBp28ePjNBZ53cyaPa5An4bdp5gxskhNfPX+iz4q1C8G56FWcbMItsoeRQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1623523898; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=cb1Apoq8qX5SQQ9cukUxRxXoYCrPwAN+NvdZnkQyuHDaXdIswaXvzFYa6XkWPu03vnvzPc TFLmcwFf2wmaUxx0PYiLIHw/Ai+XdlJv0lza+W9AaHGiRsGiNlgPLSZ1UbwUCLbmt6YHXg 6AnTbesY2I4qOdsG6SmzqB6RG+pK6GUNg4cPbvL7WIp5SMZ2p5DDI2lel4JxvkPAvNE3ki RzH8mdixPnwwANrrG3iKXpVGisP0p9f74rQ2UzA7JsWzhk2KyuZSIEtPQj6ZIxt34rxV98 oxEUZHTSHnWonX9Y4Q1Zkm9O65XGJnDLH34pdzXlHsQ0hZ8vZA09BaR/N+v75A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=disroot.org header.s=mail header.b=kyI+FOCZ; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=disroot.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.63 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=disroot.org header.s=mail header.b=kyI+FOCZ; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=disroot.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: BFC072C75F X-Spam-Score: -2.63 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: mT3Pi6te0JEI Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Bone Baboon skribis: > >> After reading further on the topic and receiving feedback I have written >> an update to my understanding of the Rust trademark policy. >> > > Thanks for the detailed study and summary! > > Guix did not ask the Rust Foundation for permission. Did any of the > other distros you mention did? I do not know if any other distrobutions have asked the Mozilla or Rust Foundations for permission. > We could ask for permission. Though I would have hoped Mozilla had > learned from the past. :-/ Contents: * Passive Approaches * Active Approaches * Summary There are several options for how to move forward with the issue of the Rust Foundation trademark policy. # Passive Approaches * Wait for the FSF licensing team to complete their review of the Rust trademark policy. ** Advantages *** No action needed by Guix while waiting for the FSF licensing team. ** Disadvantages *** FSF licensing team has set no time frame and may never complete review.=20 *** While waiting the Rust Foundation could try to enforce it's trademark policy. * Do nothing ** Advantages *** No action needed by Guix. *** The trademark policy may not be enforceable see notes below. ** Disadvantages *** The Rust Foundation could try to enforce it's trademark policy. ** Notes on trademark enforcement *** "A trademark that is popularly used to describe a product or service (rather than to distinguish the product or services from those of third parties) is sometimes known as a genericized trademark. If such a mark becomes synonymous with that product or service to the extent that the trademark owner can no longer enforce its proprietary rights, the mark becomes generic." *** "Once trademark rights are established in a particular jurisdiction, these rights are generally only enforceable in that jurisdiction, a quality which is sometimes known as "territoriality". However, there is a range of international trademark laws and systems which facilitate the protection of trademarks in more than one jurisdiction."=20 *** "Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally five years in most jurisdictions. In the case of trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use". # Active Approaches * Guix alone asks Rust Foundation for permission to use trademarks ** Advantages *** No need to coordinate with other operating systems. ** Disadvantages *** The problem remains for all other operating systems. *** The Rust Foundation may not give Guix permission. * Guix alone asks the Rust Foundation to change it's trademark policy ** Advantages *** No need to coordinate with other operating systems. ** Disadvantages *** The Rust Foundation may not change it's trademark policy. * A group of operating system together ask the Rust Foundation to change it's trademark policy ** Advantages *** More likely that the Rust Foundation will consider the request of a group of operating systems instead of request by just Guix. ** Disadvantages *** The Rust Foundation may not change it's trademark policy. ** Notes *** Ludovic Court=C3=A8s proposed this approach previously in this thread. "If the Rust trademark turns out to be a concern, distros should try hard, collectively, to resolve it through dialog with Rust Foundation people." *** If this is the desired approach I can begin work on an initial draft letter that could be shared with other operating systems for review and comment. The intent of this letter would be for Guix and other operating systems to sign off on and present to the Rust Foundation to start a dialog about the trademark policy. * Guix rebrands Rust and Cargo to conform with the current Rust Foundation trademark policy ** Advantages *** Resolves the Rust trademark policy issue for Guix. *** No coordination with any other groups is required as Guix can do this independently. *** Other operating systems can take advantage of Guix's efforts to rebrand Rust and Cargo. ** Disadvantages *** Guix would need to do work to evaluate the feasibility of rebranding Rust and Cargo. *** If rebranding is feasible then Guix would need to do the work of rebranding Rust and Cargo. (Hopefully other individuals and groups would volunteer to help.) ** Note on rebranding *** In the FSDG's Trademark section it says "In extreme cases, these restrictions may effectively render the program nonfree. It is unfair for someone to ask you to remove a trademark from modified code if that trademark is scattered all throughout the original source.". # Summary Comment and feedback are appreciated. I may have missed other interesting ways of moving forward with the Rust Foundation trademark policy issue. I seems like the ideal approach is for a group of operating system together to ask the Rust Foundation to change it's trademark policy. This approach was brought up by Ludovic Court=C3=A8s previously in this tread. Another interesting option is for Guix to rebrand the versions of Rust and Cargo that it is distributing. Guix can do this independently of any other group. However the feasibility of rebranding Rust and Cargo needs to be assessed.