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

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

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 > (port

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

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

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

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 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

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

0, Florian Weimer 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 modifying >>

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 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