Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

[David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>]

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 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
> 

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:

<https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/>

As far as I can tell, if they have been happy with the current gccrs 
project, they should in principle be happy with its integration in gcc 
mainline.  And they are also happy to talk to people, happy to promote 
rust, and happy to work with all kinds of free and open source projects. 
  The key thing they want to avoid would be for GCC to produce a 
compiler that is mostly like rust, but different - leading to 
fragmentation, incompatibilities, confusion, bugs in user code.  /No 
one/ wants that.

I am sure that if the Rust Foundation foresaw a big problem here, they'd 
already have contacted the gccrs and/or GCC folks - the project is not a 
secret.

I would think that the long term aim here is that the gcc implementation 
of rust (may I suggest "grust" as a name, rather than "gust"?) be 
considered "official" by the Rust Foundation - with links and 
information on their website, their logo on the GCC website, and 
coordination between GCC and the Rust Foundation on future changes. 
That may be ambitious, or far off, but it should be the goal.

In the meantime, as far as I can see it is just a matter of writing 
"rust" without capital letters, and a documentation disclaimer that 
grust is not (yet) endorsed by the Rust Foundation.

David