From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
Received: from vlsi1.gnat.com (vlsi1.gnat.com
 [IPv6:2620:20:4000:0:250:56ff:fe95:277b])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E63B3852754
 for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 17:12:46 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 2E63B3852754
Received: by vlsi1.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 3004)
 id DB74834093; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 13:12:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 13:12:45 EDT
To: luke.leighton@gmail.com
Subject: Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDwN_qzA1Ehpqqw5-Vwxr8G5ajY1N4ESt=UFGTK4gDBJ=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPweEDxwqufkAcaWmQa_0Pcm-KQ9cr+XfyqyeMXtcVg1Gt6YuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPweEDwN_qzA1Ehpqqw5-Vwxr8G5ajY1N4ESt=UFGTK4gDBJ=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <20220718171245.DB74834093@vlsi1.gnat.com>
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3488.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc mailing list <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc>,
 <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc>,
 <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 17:12:47 -0000

> 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 people that.  What they're saying is the same thing as
the GPL does: it you distribute modified code, you need to be clear that
what you're distributing is a modification.