Johan Myréen <[email protected]> writes: > I think a modified programming language is a bad thing. Somebody may have a > valid reason for doing that, but then they should either try to > persuade the Rust people to agree to incorporating the change into Rust, or > the changed language should be called something else.
You could use the same arguments to argue against Free Software in general. > I see the trademark policy as a way to defend Rust against Embrace, Extend, > Extinguish attacks It may be intended that way, but it also means that if Microsoft manages to embrace the organization, then the language is inescapably embraced. The chair of the "member directors" of the Rust foundation is from Microsoft: https://rustfoundation.org/about/#board-of-directors And one of the project directors is on Microsoft’s Payroll, too. Mircosoft, Meta, Amazon, Arm, and Huawei pay 66% of the member directors and 80% of the project directors. So the Rust Foundation is already fully embraced and those companies can steer Rust the language at will. That said: the GPL explicitly allows to disallow use of a trademark. > Maybe we should continue in emacs-tangents? I now switched to tangents. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. https://www.draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
