Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

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 programming language is supported by gcc
yet. There is a lot of work to be done to be able to claim that.

> 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

That looks to me as an overreaching interpretation of how to interpret
a trademark. I notice you are the bug reporter. It would only apply if
a product based on gcc with the gccrs frontend integrated would claim
to be endorsed by the Rust Foundation by using the Rust wordmark. Just
using the word rust doesn't trigger confusion about that. And
trademarks don't apply when using common words to implement an
interface or command line tool for compatibility with a programming
language.

If you are afraid your usage of gcc with the gccrs frontend integrated
does cause confusion around the Rust word mark then I would suggest
contacting the Rust Foundation to discuss how you can remove such
confusion. Probably adding a README explicitly saying "this product
isn't endorsed by and doesn't claim to be endoresed by the Rust
Foundation" will be enough.

Good luck,

Mark