Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark

[lkcl <luke.leighton@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 6:41 PM Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> 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 covered it briefly in my reply to you as well)

> 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.

yes. i mentioned that example in my reply to you and in my separate
reply to Richard: you may have missed it.

that would likely be down to the difference in the Java Trademark License
and the Rust Trademark License.

with the wording the Rust Trademark License has attempted to create a poor-man's
Certification Mark.

Certification Mark Law is an advanced variant of Trademark Law covering
Standards Compliance.

> And since
> there was no claim of being or distributing Java(tm). The same is true
> for Rust(tm) and the gccrs frontend.

this would be perfectly fine if the Rust Foundation had not explicitly
worded the Trademark License in terms of a poor-man's Certification
Mark.

i gave the relevant section that you can pass over to appropriate Legal
Counsel.

i leave it with you as i am just a "reasonably well-informed
non-lawyer messenger"
here.

> 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.

then that needs to be put into writing and made public.  only the Trademark
Holder may do that - not you. otherwise if you claim something and it turns
out not to be true, you can be sued for misrepresentation.

did i say Trademarks are a pig already?

l.