Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 at 11:27, lkcl via Gcc wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 12:41 AM David Edelsohn wrote: > > > > Luke, > > > > The GCC Community will give the issues that you raised due > > consideration and resolve any problems through appropriate channels. > > David: although this was a pri

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 12:41 AM David Edelsohn wrote: > > Luke, > > The GCC Community will give the issues that you raised due > consideration and resolve any problems through appropriate channels. David: although this was a private reply I am assuming that is in error, and i feel it is appropri

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

* Arthur Cohen: > Hi Florian, > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 20:33 Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > No. It would actually make matters worse for GCC in this case because > the stated intent is to ship without a borrow checker (“There are no > immediate plans for a borrow checker as this is not req

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On 7/19/22 01:09, lkcl via Gcc wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:01 PM David Malcolm wrote: Luke: you appear to me to be the one who is telling people what patches they can and cannot apply, and it's pissing me off. 1) please don't you dare put words into my mouth that i did not state. f

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:01 PM David Malcolm wrote: > Luke: you appear to me to be the one who is telling people what patches > they can and cannot apply, and it's pissing me off. 1) please don't you dare put words into my mouth that i did not state. first and only warning. 2) i'm sorry yo

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Mon, 2022-07-18 at 20:35 +0100, lkcl via Gcc wrote: > (apologies top-posting, strange mobile mailer). i would expect in that > case that the Rust Foundation to work closely with Certification Mark > Licensees, and to come to an accommodation, defining a subset if > necessary. > > if the gcc dev

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

(apologies top-posting, strange mobile mailer). i would expect in that case that the Rust Foundation to work closely with Certification Mark Licensees, and to come to an accommodation, defining a subset if necessary. if the gcc developers can clearly enunciate why shipping a "borrow checker" (w

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

Hi Florian, On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 20:33 Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > * lkcl via Gcc: > > > if the Rust Foundation were to add an extremely simple phrase > > > >"to be able to use the word rust in a distributed compiler your > > modifications must 100% pass the test suite without modif

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

* lkcl via Gcc: > if the Rust Foundation were to add an extremely simple phrase > >"to be able to use the word rust in a distributed compiler your > modifications must 100% pass the test suite without modifying > the test suite" > > then all the problems and pain goes away. No. It wo

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

> A Certification Mark is the proper way to formally and legally enforce such > requirements. BTW, nobody is or was at all confident that the Ada mark was legally enforcable. I'm in the camp that it isn't. > telling people they cannot patch the source code without permission Nobody is telling

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

> In order to be a validated Ada compiler, a compiler must pass > an extensive suite of programs called the Ada Compiler Validation > Capability (ACVC). FYI: the current name for this is ACATS: Ada Conformity Assessment Test Suite. >"to be able to use the word rust in a distribute

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

a (private) discussion has, fascinatingly, uncovered this, from 1987: http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/policy/trademrk.txt In order to be a validated Ada compiler, a compiler must pass an extensive suite of programs called the Ada Compiler Validation Capability (ACVC). The AJPO has a

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 9:50 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > You haven't been ignored. People have expressed reasonable > disagreements with your interpretation. > > Just because every line of your email hasn't been explicitly responded > to with positive acknowledgement of receipt doesn't mean you'v

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 09:07, lkcl via Gcc wrote: > which is why i said - and have been ignored - that the gcc developers > need rather urgently to seek proper legal counsel and get a proper > legal opinion. You haven't been ignored. People have expressed reasonable disagreements with your interp

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:09 AM David Brown wrote: > Speaking as someone who is neither a lawyer, nor a GCC developer, nor > even (as yet) a Rust user, it seems to me that step 1 would be to hear > what the Rust Foundation has to say on the matter: > >

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On 17/07/2022 18:31, Mark Wielaard wrote: Hi Luke, On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 04:28:10PM +0100, lkcl via Gcc wrote: with the recent announcement that rust is supported by gcc There is just a discussion about whether and how to integrate (portions) of the gccrs frontend into the main gcc reposito

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

> Normal use of a word isn't something that Trademarks prevent. In general, no, but what it prevents is using the word in a way that would produce confusion with an "official" use of that mark. If the word that constitutes the mark is too general, then the trademark shouldn't have been granted.

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

sorry, Mark, you're still misunderstanding, on multiple levels and in so many ways i am having a hard time tracking them all. i don't feel that i've been heard, and consequently do not feel comfortable continuing the conversation, especially given that i have other priorities. if you had asked qu

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

Hi Luke, On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 07:29:22PM +0100, lkcl wrote: > whilst you *as developers* have been in contact with the Rust Foundation > and presumably have private assurances that your use of the Trademarked > word "rust" is Authorised under License (through either implication or by > actual e

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Jul 17, 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > We’ll call it gust. How about "giust"? (GNU Implementation of...) so that it sounds like https://just-lang.org/ -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU To

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Jul 17, 2022, Mark Wielaard wrote: > None of that required a trademark license because the usage of the > word java was just for compatibility with the java programming > language. "just for compatibility" is an defense that applies to copyrights, but AFAIK it doesn't apply to trademarks. in

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

ah. right. sorry Mark i missed something. whilst you *as developers* have been in contact with the Rust Foundation and presumably have private assurances that your use of the Trademarked word "rust" is Authorised under License (through either implication or by actual explicit approval) absolutely

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

> 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

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

> just as with the Java Trademark, you as developers can say "gust is > compatible with the rust language" but you *cannot* say "gust is > compatible with rust". Note that trademarks are adjectives, not nouns (and only apply to specific nouns, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 6:41 PM Mark Wielaard wrote: > 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. i'm aware of the difference. i mentioned this in my first reply to Richard (and cover

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

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 g

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 5:31 PM Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Hi Luke, > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 04:28:10PM +0100, lkcl via Gcc wrote: > > with the recent announcement that rust is supported by gcc > > There is just a discussion about whether and how to integrate > (portions) of the gccrs frontend in

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 5:25 PM Richard Biener wrote: > > if the word "rust" is entirely removed from the gcc source code then > > there is no problem whatsoever (recall: "iceweasel"). > > We’ll call it gust. love it! the puns i would have recommended would have been based on "iron oxide". plea

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

Hi Luke, On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 04:28:10PM +0100, lkcl via Gcc wrote: > with the recent announcement that rust is supported by gcc There is just a discussion about whether and how to integrate (portions) of the gccrs frontend into the main gcc repository. Nobody claims that means the rust progra

Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

> Am 17.07.2022 um 17:29 schrieb lkcl via Gcc : > > with the recent announcement that rust is supported by gcc > has it been taken into consideration that the draconian (non-free-compatible) > requirements of the rust Trademark make the distribution of the gcc > compiler Unlawful? > >http

rust non-free-compatible trademark

with the recent announcement that rust is supported by gcc has it been taken into consideration that the draconian (non-free-compatible) requirements of the rust Trademark make the distribution of the gcc compiler Unlawful? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920 if the word