From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua1-x936.google.com (mail-ua1-x936.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::936]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42B2A385AE4E for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:31:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 42B2A385AE4E Received: by mail-ua1-x936.google.com with SMTP id u41so5306119uau.8 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 07:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=IGJGQ1SGm06SdfVCxJp4/Nj0KRvfwZ5OxgJomEK9C0E=; b=uKuO01bK0Zho+M5sWBQWW2K7QQmqTypI4krWpV0B6WrBYrM/rOVsRTMzrWyHG05nd2 NVqAHdXQchc0aHS1yx9S+ecunMVg4qgJsu2fkJnColXUMSPVtjBgL0EiNmcWLWG41fvh wynhDfM7mbUDU/mphmcjpurUvNQPsmTwKt1WcJiPwCE6rFlTwkm5hr0Zg+xb3C7T6RZQ U5SPbTmqr/cnzLTZ/exWdw91t62bsHhDSDGW2OYfiLKG07FUVExE5hy2kI5kBoq3V2L2 er77wYNVkJ+LAWsE4b5HHaSbtJMXBfY36OxVsKDrAJevHBWJ/6cBlqIp6hYexN4IpwsB DTgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9uWxaUy6K4o+U2hY5t9BvhV+XJTBPG+cVvTH3jXc0JQSjIuuuI FAUky6yh8mfz47knuVjHwAvdACOr0iMgJ4acUkv4jxERPDw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sHJgUEGGFUrQ2jyJ/2ZjS3Qx9+bcnDl5ykvPA4LdcjK+GppM6fDzwSVTT2LjGAea7XUtaUjlqIQq2fJs8mPao= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:390d:0:b0:382:99a4:4aba with SMTP id b13-20020ab0390d000000b0038299a44abamr9995767uaw.107.1658154669541; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 07:31:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: lkcl Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:30:55 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark To: GCC developers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0000 a (private) discussion has, fascinatingly, uncovered this, from 1987: http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/policy/trademrk.txt In order to be a validated Ada compiler, a compiler must pass an extensive suite of programs called the Ada Compiler Validation Capability (ACVC). The AJPO has adopted a certification mark to show that a compiler has passed the ACVC and is a validated compiler or a compiler derived from a validated base compiler as defined in the Ada Compiler Validations Procedures and Guidelines (version 1.1 of which was issued in January 1987). The certification mark may also be used on certain literature accompanying or documenting a validated compiler. Information concerning the proper use of the certification mark was distributed to interested parties during the summer of 1987. what that tells us is that there is precedent for a Computer Language to apply for and be granted a *Certification Mark* which was enforced through the extremely simple process of running an Authorised Certification Suite. the modern name for such is "test suite". if the Rust Foundation were to add an extremely simple phrase "to be able to use the word rust in a distributed compiler your modifications must 100% pass the test suite without modifying the test suite" then all the problems and pain goes away. as i said: the Rust Foundation is the world's first FOSS Project attempting to create a Certification Mark (and doing a poor-man's job of it). a thorough investigation of how it was done for ADA should reveal how it can be properly done for gccrs and rustc. i feel reasonably confident in saying that if i had the time to look up discussions on this topic, there would almost certainly be requests from the Rust Foundation that gccrs pass the exact same test suites as provided with rustc. A Certification Mark is the proper way to formally and legally enforce such requirements. telling people they cannot patch the source code without permission is a troublesome and tiresome and non-trusting way to attempt the same objective. l.