Hi Luke, On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 06:06:45PM +0100, lkcl via Gcc wrote: > given that gcc is *entirely implementing* the rust programming > language (from scratch) and given that that implementation is not in > fact implemented by the Rust Foundation (the Trademark Holders > themselves) but by the gcc developers, then by definition *every* > single line of source code constitutes "a patch", and according to > the Trademark License they (the Rust Foundation) require that you > seek explicit approval for its distribution.
I think you are misinterpreting when you need a trademark license for usage a word mark in an implementation of a compiler for a programming language. Note that gcc used to come with a full implementation of the Java programming language, compiler, runtime and core library implementation (for which I was the GNU maintainer). None of that required a trademark license because the usage of the word java was just for compatibility with the java programming language. And since there was no claim of being or distributing Java(tm). The same is true for Rust(tm) and the gccrs frontend. Also note that the Rust Foundation is aware of the work and has already integraeted parts of gcc through another alternative implementation (based on libgccjit). As far as we know thy have no problem with either alternative implementation of the Rust programming language. Cheers, Mark
