When I read about codes of conduct like this I worry about humnan relations. Does remote work cause the need for CoC? The over prescription of interactions seem like sci-fi to me. I haven’t worked in an office since the last millennium.
> Does remote work cause the need for CoC? No, CoCs became a trend way before covid made remote work possible for the masses. They initially were demanded by project members after high-profile scandals of some kind, usually racist or otherwise discriminatory bullshit, sexual assault on conferences or bullying (Linus Torvalds for example used to be infamous for his language), and then other projects (or their members)…
The problem is most people will in fact not be assholes, but the ones who have a disproportionate effect, because there's no direct penalty. Someone can't stand in your yard and loudly shout personal abuse for very long without getting hauled away by the police*, but there's no such enforcement mechanism online.
[*] yes, it can be more complicated than this. you get my meaning.
> You have to protect trademarks or you lose them. Not really. How do you imagine this could work if it was true? It's a great excuse if you're looking to throw your weight around of course. Oh the poor Disney corporation had to sue that primary school for a bajillion dollars, or else they would lose their trademark. Does that sort of thing even pass the sniff test for you? And it works out great for lawyers too. Ins…
Sadly that's indeed how trademark law works - if you don't make even a token effort at enforcing your rights, they can become common names and effectively be lost. That doesn't mean one should rabidly go after every single possible infringing use, obviously, which is what the infamous drafted Rust policy kinda did. It's one of those things that are just not black and white, because laws say one thing ("be harsh all o…
Well, that's not exactly how it works. You don't even need to register a trademark to have common law rights to avoid source confusion. You have to use the mark though or you lose the rights, that much is true. But the only way you lose the right to enforce altogether is if you have some kind of unregistered mark and let it expire.
And even if everything you said was exactly right, they still don't have to enforce the trademark in every case to protect their rights.
As long as they keep making Rust, they own the rights to call a programming language Rust and they have the right to be identified as the official source and as long as they perfect their rights, they can use it to stop others from using it in certain cases, if they want. There's not really a "waiver" issue except in edge cases.
Things only become "common names" in the case (or at least it used to be) that they become generic terms in the language, like "Hey, go xerox this, get me a kleenex, and then google something." Rust will never be able to expand its mark quite like that because it is a generic term in other uses, such as iron oxide. They will not be able to control the production of iron oxide or who calls it rust.
So the whole "that's just how this works" defense is either one given by an apologist or someone who is just wrong.
> Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not the goal. I see it as: there's a finite amount of people who choose to dedicate their unpaid free time contributing to making Rust better (working on fixing bugs, new features, etc.) This seems like fragmentation which basically will slow down progress. Now, obviously the people who choose to dedicate their free time to open source software are enti…
You're making a huge assumption with the "unpaid free time" part of this. A lot of Rust development is driven by corporations who are directly paying engineers to work on it, and the rust foundation has a lot of money coming in via donations (literally millions).
> A lot of Rust development is driven by corporations who are directly paying engineers to work on it, and the rust foundation has a lot of money coming in via donations (literally millions).
Then why are people set up about the trademark/copyright/license issue?
> Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not the goal. I see it as: there's a finite amount of people who choose to dedicate their unpaid free time contributing to making Rust better (working on fixing bugs, new features, etc.) This seems like fragmentation which basically will slow down progress. Now, obviously the people who choose to dedicate their free time to open source software are enti…
On the other hand it could become a place to test ideas and port the winners over to rust. It’s not necessarily negative.
This assumes it doesn't slow down velocity/introduce time wasted with bureaucracy/trying to keep 2 separate codebases in sync/timelines/initiatives, etc.
> Sadly that's indeed how trademark law works - if you don't make even a token effort at enforcing your rights, they can become common names and effectively be lost. Can they? Give me examples of such trademarks being lost. Do make sure to check your examples. Maybe you heard say that Xerox lost their trademark. Nope, Xerox® is still a registered trademark of Xerox. > That doesn't mean one should rabidly go after eve…
"Lost" meaning that one loses the right to stop others from using the genericized brand, not meaning that the trademark ceases to exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
If it becomes generic it might as well be, but that's not the issue here. Anyway, the parent post has a google jd in trademark law and doesn't know what he's talking about, but you can't enforce your TM the same way, or if at all, if has become generic.
The main way you lose tm rights is by not using the mark.
Honestly this bomb was waiting to burst for a long time now. Rust has aligned politically instead of just being a cool language. Bringing politics into something unrelated which brings people together is always a recipe for disaster.
But… the people who made it brought the politics. They own it. Rust is also not a cool language. You can not be cool and fuss about soundness and memory safety at the same time. It is mutually exclusive.
I'm struggling to decide whether this comment is a troll comment or not. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
> But… the people who made it brought the politics. They own it.
They don't. At the very least not fully. The compiler itself is MIT/Apache licensed. This gives up a lot of control and I think many people, including me, would say that means they don't own it anymore.
> Rust is also not a cool language. You can not be cool and fuss about soundness and memory safety at the same time. It is mutually exclusifve.
Whether the people who implement Rust and/or write Rust are cool has nothing to do whether the language itself is cool. I also fail to grasp why caring about memory safety and soundness and being cool is considered mutually exclusive. Why would it be?
I would like to remind everyone of the time where NodeJS was forked into a more bleeding edge version of Node, and eventually down the line, all the changes were pulled into NodeJS and things were consolidated. Edit: It was iojs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8694953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669557
Or much longer ago, egcs being forked from gcc and later being subsumed back into the original project by the FSF
Or XEmacs forking off from Emacs in 1993. Although that didn't so much get subsumed but basically died a decade or so ago when most of the features XEmacs provided had been added to normal Emacs.
CrabLang doesn't want to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. They 100% support all the decisions the Rust Project made. CrabLang was created to get people to out themselves who hate Rust and want to see it fail. Anyways... > The ultimate objective is to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. That's not what this fork says is the objective. https://crablang.org/ > We simply want to use [Rust] while retaining the…
>In which case, CrabLang wanted to use the Rust trademarks to deceive people into thinking it's endorsed by the project and foundation. Instead, I see their statement as a visceral reaction to some legal threat they received that they don't think was valid. They probably weren't trying to deceive anyone, they just wanted to name their project "Rust Widget" or something and don't like that they are open to legal actio…
> they just wanted to name their project "Rust Widget"
That's already explicitly covered by their trademark policy.
> Using the Rust trademarks in the names of non-commercial products like RustPostgres or Rustymine, or in the name of code repositories in e.g. GitHub, is allowed when referring to use with or suitability for the Rust programming language. Such uses may also include the Rust logo, even in modified form. For commercial products (including crowdfunded or sponsored ones), please check in with us to ensure your use does not appear official.
> They probably weren't trying to deceive anyone
That's the intent of the policy they oppose, so... /shrug
Haven't ever used Rust and probably won't. Regardless, the melodramatic cliquey "I'm leaving the project" bluster as of late reminds me of my 14 year old self on various vbulletin forums and grants me conviction avoiding adopting this language and its ecosystem. I prefer the tools I use for building businesses to be administered by adults.
>> the melodramatic cliquey "I'm leaving the project" bluster as of late... That may be good. It a narcissistic trait and they are leaving the project.
Honestly, the language and the community are mostly great. There's a few outliers that aggressively want to draw attention to themselves (which is inherently narcissistic).
That's not something that's unique to Rust in particular, every community has those. Rust's is still relatively small given it's only had a big uptick of users Recently. It'll settle eventually; it always does.
Also, I don't tend to interact or pay much attention to the bad apples in the community. So, I guess I'm just not that bothered by them. Ignoring them is the worst thing you can do to narcissists and idiots; it makes them go away to leech elsewhere.
Whether it's Rust or Crab I am not particularly bothered; the technical side of the language are a boon in themselves.
You're making a huge assumption with the "unpaid free time" part of this. A lot of Rust development is driven by corporations who are directly paying engineers to work on it, and the rust foundation has a lot of money coming in via donations (literally millions).
Some of the rust political decisions are concerning though. I can see the companies giving that money switching to someone else to avoid that politics. Time will tell, first the replacement needs to stick around for a while and prove to be a viable fork, which is hard without the donations.