Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

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