🦀 A note on the Rust Trademark Policy Draft
https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/04/12/trademark-policy-draft-feedback.html
@AstraKernel Disappointing. This does nothing to acknowledge the criticism, but only belittles it by incorrectly claiming that there are thousands of conflicting views and that criticism is harassment.
I wish the trademark group would understand how they are harassing the community. I've been dedicating the past four years of my life to research in Rust, and suddenly I may no longer be able to use the name of the language. I may also have to remove Rust from my upcoming conference presentation.
@squirrel @AstraKernel
The unfortunate fact online is that when criticisms amount to thousands, even if each one of them may be valid, the volume alone has a depressing effect akin to harassment. e.g. "Your icon is ugly." by one person is an expression of personal opinion, but the same thing by a thousand people would become a depressing social disparagement. (I think your icon squirrel is ugly-cute.)
To summarize the common use case summary of the draft policy, Ferris is always free to use, the shorthand "RS" is always free to use, and "Rust" can be used as long as a disclaimer of no affiliation / no endorsement is present. To that end it is similar to Apache's trademark policy. Regarding usage in presentation specifically, it is specified in 5.1.3:
> You can use the Word Marks in book and article titles, and the Logo in illustrations within the work, as long as the use does not suggest that the Rust Foundation has published, endorsed, or agrees with your work.
I Am Not A Lawyer but I wouldn't worry, because there are so many Apache talks and books out there.
Emotionally I agree that the language of the policy, and legalese in general, to be irksome. Partly it is the language being more specific about intentions and behaviors than daily usage, violating some norms for signaling friendliness. The other part, I think is the new boundary, the divide of the Foundation and Users made aware and bare, and every assertion of control by the Foundation in the policy widens that divide, and it hurts. Despite that, I still think the policy is necessary.
