[MavenGradle]

I don't know. Sure feels like it. Even though it's just a 'draft', it feels like this will be hanging over R*st's shoulders for a long time to come.

[Cl0ser]

Even having a draft like that is just going to hurt the community.

F in chat I guess.

[MavenGradle]

Even having a draft like that is just going to hurt the community.

F in chat I guess.

They just sent out a notice about 2 hours ago. Guess they finally figured out that no one, and I do mean absolutely no one, supports the foundation:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2...dback.html

F indeed. It does not address any of the issues the community has. It's like a giant fuck you, we don't care and also we will sue you and enforce our policies!

What a trash thing to do. RIP.

[ItachiUchiha]

I also didn't know that you could buy a $10 shitty template and then attempt to trademark it!

You've used their trade name in the post title and in the post. I hope they don't come for you :D
Well, I was always confused between RUUST and GO (I know Python and wanted to expand to some other language). Now, I have got a clear winner.

[Dirty]

Saw this few days ago, very out of touch and incredibly stupid. I wonder how this is going to progress going forward

[Faith Connors]

ok but in all fairness, theprimeagen, as much as i love his content, is not being charitable with his interpretation of the draft.

take the section of 'user groups' for instance.
he only mentions discord as the only possible 'user group' possible to have, and considering that it's free, factors that into the entire section.

unfortunately, he casually omits the last point in that section which clarifies:

Any charge to attend meetings is to cover the cost of the venue, food and drink only.

meaning that they are primarily talking about in-person meetups, or in other words, not just discord servers.

---

or, as another example, with the code of conduct rule:

every major discussion place for rustaceans already has a fairly strict code of conduct because they try to adhere with rust's policy already.
literally, here is the official rustlang discord server:

(it says updated dec21 22, but i think they just linked the original one instead of copy-pasting it, because the CoC was always there in some form)

and, despite all the backlash that the concept of a 'code of conduct' has gotten years ago, it's not like it's something harmful.
literally read it and see how straightforward it is.

---

and another example, just to prove my point:

the whole 'using a word similar to ours in a trademark'

its like if i opened a cell phone company tomorrow and called it 'appel' because that is french for 'call'
i will get one million letters from apple lawyers overnight.

"but faith that is because your theoretical company does basically the same thing that apple does!!!"

and sure enough, the rust policy clearly states that you cannot use 'rust' 'rost' 'rusty' 'cargo net' etc. [...] for a similar or compatible product or service.

and keep in mind, this document primarily limits the corporate/commercial usage of rust IP (logos, names, etc., not even the language/toolchain itself) and not much for individual's usage.

you can still make a funny rust memes discord server with your friends and not need to worry about rust lawyers.

the problem is when shopify makes a rust memes discord with a green rust logo to try and promote their own company
(if you are curious about why i bring up shopify, its because they wrote the latest ruby yjit in rust earlier this year)

---

ofc, i am not completely bootlicking. there are things i disagree with personally, but i can still see the rationale behind them: eg., separating community from foundation in crate naming, in creating rust content, etc.

it's a bit of a pain for creators, but not really as harmful as prime makes it sound. my best guess is that it has something to do with liabilities

---

thats my main takeaway at least.
the draft sounds bad when a youtuber/content creator known for being loud and funny reads them
but if you read them yourself completely it's actually more or less reasonable.

[MavenGradle]

thats my main takeaway at least.
the draft sounds bad when a youtuber/content creator known for being loud and funny reads them
but if you read them yourself completely it's actually more or less reasonable.

Let's pretend that the current draft is final and accepted for a second. Me using the word r*st and suicide together in the same sentence opens me up to lawsuits. Does that seem reasonable to you? If it does, we have a very different opinion regarding the meaning of the word reasonable.

If I make a website, tutoring people in R*st and use the domain r*stmeup.io or whatever, I once again open myself up for a lawsuit.

This goes above and beyond what Oracle did to Java. Above and beyond my friend. Remember, Oracle meant well too, yet they sued Google over the usage of Java for Android (and lost). Reasonable much?

They thinking this is reasonable, and enforcable even in the real world is a major what the fuck. Also, they're against guns and want to enforce that, even in places where it's legally allowed? What the fuck?

rust-analyzer - liable
rust-openssl - liable
This post - liable
Your post - liable

You think theprimeagen is the loudest voice in regards to this policy? Then you have not heard the voices of the masses.

Such a language with such violent legal policies does not belong in the Linux kernel and discussions are already underway to remove all mentions of R*st in Linux. Mark my words, they have fucked it up completely.

Do note that I'm using the word liable here a lot. This is not about the foundation potentially leaving the small non commercial fish out of it all, but simply the fact that they could go after everyone at any point in time with that policy, if they wanted to. Does that still seem reasonable to you?

[Yani]

and sure enough, the rust policy clearly states that you cannot use 'rust' 'rost' 'rusty' 'cargo net' etc. [...] for a similar or compatible product or service.

LOL. Rusty is such a different direction.

I'm sure there's tech stuff already called Rusty.

---

Reasonable he says. What the fuck.

There's a few reasonable things.
Most of them just make it look like a company instead of just giving them the ability to sue people that abuse the branding.
And even that isn't really something that should be tried to be prevented. Just look at other languages, there aren't really people trying to steal a whole coding language...

[MavenGradle]

LOL. Rusty is such a different direction.

I'm sure there's tech stuff already called Rusty.

---

There's a few reasonable things.
Most of them just make it look like a company instead of just giving them the ability to sue people that abuse the branding.
And even that isn't really something that should be tried to be prevented. Just look at other languages, there aren't really people trying to steal a whole coding language...

Yeah. In favor of not getting sued I propose we call it the Shit Foundation and the Shit language. Let me rewrite all this in Shit.

I am also obliged to say that I am not affiliated with the Rust Foundation - wait shit I'm liable again for using the word R*ST. Shit! Worse than brainfuck.

You can't make this stuff up. In their latest blog post they were claiming to be the victims. Oh I'm sure they meant so well (sarcasm) with that draft that could make so many people and entities liable. Fuck em.

[Faith Connors]

for the record, i do think that the rust foundation is kinda silly for trying to turn a programming language into a brand, and that is where most of this stems from.
if they do want to actually brand things, they should keep it at branding the foundation, and not branding the technology.

i think we can agree on this.

Let's pretend that the current draft is final and accepted for a second. Me using the word rust and suicide together in the same sentence opens me up to lawsuits. Does that seem reasonable to you? If it does, we have a very different opinion regarding the meaning of the word reasonable.

If I make a website, tutoring people in Rust and use the domain rustmeup.io or whatever, I once again open myself up for a lawsuit.

This goes above and beyond what Oracle did to Java. Above and beyond my friend. Remember, Oracle meant well too, yet they sued Google over the usage of Java for Android (and lost). Reasonable much?

is it reasonable to use rust and suicide together like that when talking about rust the language
is it even more reasonable to be a company using those terms talking about rust the language

i would hope not

offside (Click to View)

as a little offside, lets say i have the phrase "i think rust devs should do a suicide"

am i talking about people who program in rust?
or am i talking about people who actively develop rust (e.g., foundation devs)?

its ambiguous, and that is a problem, yes.

but, at the end of the day, the CoC already prohibits me saying either.
and honestly, its probably for the better.

it's distasteful to wish that kind of ill on anyone.



and this is not worse than oracle lol
oracle actually sued google and as you said, lost.
who is rust going to sue, fsf and linux foundation XDXDXDXD
we both know they collectively have like 5$ in their bank account lol

what oracle did was throw a commercial license on their runtime and toolchain, meaning it affected everyone who used oracle jdk/jre by treating everyone as a commercial entity, which is what even gave them grounds to try and sue

what rustfoundation is doing is creating a brand around their products and creating policy on how the brand can be used (or prohibiting how it can be used) in any vendor materials.

its like if openjdk decided they want to go big, and built a brand called "free-j" or something. they would make policy on how 'free-j' can be used in any vendor material.

it's just super unfortunate that 'rust' refers to both the tech and the foundation. it an ambiguous nightmare, and i hope in revisions of the draft, they do better to separate the foundation from the tech.

They thinking this is reasonable, and enforcable even in the real world is a major what the fuck. Also, they're against guns and want to enforce that, even in places where it's legally allowed? What the fuck?

i am going to assume you are american.
i am canadian, but for the record, i do actually possess a license to use firearms, so do not consider me a complete ignorant on the issue.

before even considering if this is a good or bad policy, first ask yourself:
"why do i need a firearm at a convention about a programming language"

because, like, if you are bringing a firearm with you, you feel threatened.
its not like bringing a little pocket knife that will help you peel an orange in the dining hall, or that will help you remove a staple from a booklet. a pocket knife has practical utility, meanwhile a firearm does not

meanwhile, the CoC is aimed to help users create the least threatening environment imaginable for the community.

the CoC is also designed to be the least political document imaginable. it quite literally boils down to "dont harass people in the community"
bringing a firearm or not bringing a firearm is an ultimately political issue.

and again, we cycle back back to the issue of branding.

the foundation is probably sponsoring the event, since an 'unofficial' event wouldnt be held to these standards (just put that 'unaffiliated' blurb at the top of your brochure.)

my best guess is that the 'unaffiliated' blurb is their primary way of discerning brand from tech.
which again, i dont think is the best option.

rust-analyzer - liable
rust-openssl - liable
This post - liable
Your post - liable

You think theprimeagen is the loudest voice in regards to this policy? Then you have not heard the voices of the masses.

you are right; i was refering to the video being uncharitable and cherry-picking parts it doesnt like.
and im going to guess that my interpretations are all correct since you didnt address any of my points, while making your own points.

like i said at the end, i do think it is a bit of a stretch to remove the word 'rust' from nonstandard packages. i understand where they are coming from: they want standard packages to be recognized as different and separated from vendor packages.

its like if i made a nonstandard c++ library today, and released it on github and it got a lot of users, and it was called "std_networking" or something, that aimed to unify network programming without needing to worry about platforms, using macros and generics and whatever else.

wouldnt that be confusing to anyone who was learning c++ and thought that my library was part of the standard?

i understand rust wanting to separate vendor from foundation.
can they do better? absolutely.
dont remove rust from packages names, just append something like "std_" to foundation packages and you are good to go.

Such a language with such violent legal policies does not belong in the Linux kernel and discussions are already underway to remove all mentions of Rust in Linux. Mark my words, they have fucked it up completely.

Do note that I'm using the word liable here a lot. This is not about the foundation potentially leaving the small non commercial fish out of it all, but simply the fact that they could go after everyone at any point in time with that policy, if they wanted to. Does that still seem reasonable to you?

i agree; if it has a super strict policy, then i dont think it should be included either.
consider java/oracle. if you use anything other than openjdk you are trolling.

i think the policy should be loosened up; they are trying to treat Rust more like a brand than a technology.
why the sudden shift? i dont know. i dont necessarily welcome it in this form of the draft, but as i said, i do hope they add better discernment from the tech in the next iterations of the draft. i do like the language. i do like the tech, and i would hate to see it turn into a completely commercialized solution after watching it and supporting it for so long.

i'm just trying to remain optimistic and be charitable in interpretation.

[MavenGradle]

for the record, i do think that the rust foundation is kinda silly for trying to turn a programming language into a brand, and that is where most of this stems from.
if they do want to actually brand things, they should keep it at branding the foundation, and not branding the technology.

i think we can agree on this.


is it reasonable to use rust and suicide together like that when talking about rust the language
is it even more reasonable to be a company using those terms talking about rust the language

i would hope not

offside (Click to View)

as a little offside, lets say i have the phrase "i think rust devs should do a suicide"

am i talking about people who program in rust?
or am i talking about people who actively develop rust (e.g., foundation devs)?

its ambiguous, and that is a problem, yes.

but, at the end of the day, the CoC already prohibits me saying either.
and honestly, its probably for the better.

it's distasteful to wish that kind of ill on anyone.



and this is not worse than oracle lol
oracle actually sued google and as you said, lost.
who is rust going to sue, fsf and linux foundation XDXDXDXD
we both know they collectively have like 5$ in their bank account lol

what oracle did was throw a commercial license on their runtime and toolchain, meaning it affected everyone who used oracle jdk/jre by treating everyone as a commercial entity, which is what even gave them grounds to try and sue

what rustfoundation is doing is creating a brand around their products and creating policy on how the brand can be used (or prohibiting how it can be used) in any vendor materials.

its like if openjdk decided they want to go big, and built a brand called "free-j" or something. they would make policy on how 'free-j' can be used in any vendor material.

it's just super unfortunate that 'rust' refers to both the tech and the foundation. it an ambiguous nightmare, and i hope in revisions of the draft, they do better to separate the foundation from the tech.


i am going to assume you are american.
i am canadian, but for the record, i do actually possess a license to use firearms, so do not consider me a complete ignorant on the issue.

before even considering if this is a good or bad policy, first ask yourself:
"why do i need a firearm at a convention about a programming language"

because, like, if you are bringing a firearm with you, you feel threatened.
its not like bringing a little pocket knife that will help you peel an orange in the dining hall, or that will help you remove a staple from a booklet. a pocket knife has practical utility, meanwhile a firearm does not

meanwhile, the CoC is aimed to help users create the least threatening environment imaginable for the community.

the CoC is also designed to be the least political document imaginable. it quite literally boils down to "dont harass people in the community"
bringing a firearm or not bringing a firearm is an ultimately political issue.

and again, we cycle back back to the issue of branding.

the foundation is probably sponsoring the event, since an 'unofficial' event wouldnt be held to these standards (just put that 'unaffiliated' blurb at the top of your brochure.)

my best guess is that the 'unaffiliated' blurb is their primary way of discerning brand from tech.
which again, i dont think is the best option.


you are right; i was refering to the video being uncharitable and cherry-picking parts it doesnt like.
and im going to guess that my interpretations are all correct since you didnt address any of my points, while making your own points.

like i said at the end, i do think it is a bit of a stretch to remove the word 'rust' from nonstandard packages. i understand where they are coming from: they want standard packages to be recognized as different and separated from vendor packages.

its like if i made a nonstandard c++ library today, and released it on github and it got a lot of users, and it was called "std_networking" or something, that aimed to unify network programming without needing to worry about platforms, using macros and generics and whatever else.

wouldnt that be confusing to anyone who was learning c++ and thought that my library was part of the standard?

i understand rust wanting to separate vendor from foundation.
can they do better? absolutely.
dont remove rust from packages names, just append something like "std_" to foundation packages and you are good to go.


i agree; if it has a super strict policy, then i dont think it should be included either.
consider java/oracle. if you use anything other than openjdk you are trolling.

i think the policy should be loosened up; they are trying to treat Rust more like a brand than a technology.
why the sudden shift? i dont know. i dont necessarily welcome it in this form of the draft, but as i said, i do hope they add better discernment from the tech in the next iterations of the draft. i do like the language. i do like the tech, and i would hate to see it turn into a completely commercialized solution after watching it and supporting it for so long.

i'm just trying to remain optimistic and be charitable in interpretation.

I read your comments and it sounds like reading it all through rose-colored glasses or even, and please do apologize me, sometimes naive. I read my comments and it sounds like doom and end of the world stuff. You ask why I did not cherry pick your comment apart, it's because they are both valid ways to look at things.

It's just completely weird. I've never in my life seen a programming language try not to meddle in politics by meddling in politics. I've never seen a programming language foundation tell you that guns are bad and you should not have them. You can hopefully understand how restrictive this all is in nature, and how they might mean well but in the future this could be one of the worst disasters for R*st programmers.

You could definitely argue that the foundation isn't going to sue anyone, because of money, but trademarks need to be enforced and as such it is unavoidable for them to sue someone. That is a fact, unless they want to lose their trademark.

Regardless, the question is why. Why would they need it to be a brand if the foundation itself is non-profit, the language is completely open source, and no one in their right mind would start a new language now called R*st because we already have a R*st. This all reads like a hammer looking for a non-existent nail. Legalese in search of problems that they themselves invented.

In simpler terms, they want to be inclusive, yet ban people who love guns. How is that inclusive? It's not. It never has been. Their code of conduct is not one that is inclusive because it excludes a lot of people and that just does not sit right with me, because such a policy can and has been abused in the past, and for what. Just let us program in peace without all this shit. So what if some bad actor at some point uses R*st to build malware.. You can't stop that from happening.

In my opinion they don't need all this stuff. They don't need a trademark, they're a non profit. Linus Torvalds holds a patent of the penguin logo, and I'm fine with that, they can have patents on their logo's. Whatever, who cares. But to take it as far as to say that R*st is now a term that needs to be preceded by 'I am not a member of the Rust Foundation' is completely nuts. It's so far removed from what is even legally possible and enforceable that it sometimes reads like satire.

Like 'You can use the Ferris logo', why is that even in there? They don't hold any marks over it, so why do they feel the need to 'allow' us to use it if they don't have shit to say over the Ferris logo to begin with.

Just comes to say they lost a lot of R*st evangelists over the last couple of days over the various social media platforms and as such even I can't recommend people R*st over this draft anymore, let alone touch the language again, as I have not touched it since the draft feedback form was opened. I'm sorry but they let me down big time, and I hope to see some form of apology soon so I can write in my favorite language again without feeling like an idiot.

[Stanley]

I'm Stanley HF's helper bot. The OP (original poster) of this thread wants everyone to see this page and has elected to bump it to the top of the showthread listing. Since HF doesn't want a ton of LQP (Low Quality Posts) this is the best method of bumping your content. There is a small βyte fee for each bump. Any OP can bump any of their threads on HF from the linked icon on the top of their first post.

If you haven't already read the first post of this thread we encourage you to do so.

Thanks,
Stanley

[MavenGradle]

Okay so small update. Had some discussions on Reddit with some of the Core members of Rust in which they admit the draft is essentially shit with some major oversights in regards to crate names and more.. They have yet to release an actual official apology or statement with something real in it to fix this shitshow though. They don't use the words shit though and did not admit to it being shit, not using those words anyway, because you know, they're a 'friendly and inclusive' bunch. I see an apology statement and course correction coming in 5...

Love these guys for bringing us Rust but damn does it sometimes feel like they live on a different planet.

[Vibe]

Why is you censoring Rust in your post

[MavenGradle]

Why is you censoring Rust in your post

For satirical purposes, considering you cannot use that word, if the draft were final, without stating that you are not affiliated with The R*st Foundation.