>You could use the same arguments to argue against Free Software in general.
Of course, if you want to put it that way. We are talking about trademarks here, not licenses. There is a reason we don't have clones of non-free pieces of software named Word, Adobe Illustrator, Salesforce CRM, etc. Also, if somebody would create a modified version of, say, GNU Autotools that spies on the user and named it GNU Autotools, I am pretty sure the FSF would put their lawyers on the task. >> 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. I didn't mean Microsoft would necessarily be the one doing the EEE attack; it could be Oracle this time. >So the Rust Foundation is already fully embraced and those companies can >steer Rust the language at will. This is totally irrelevant. Are you saying Rust is nonfree software, despite being under a "free" license, just because "those [evil] companies" are members of the Rust Foundation? Where do you draw the line between "those companies" and "friendly" companies? >That said: the GPL explicitly allows to disallow use of a trademark. Here is the only passage in GPLv3 that contains the word "trademark": "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: [...] e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks" This does not sound like a very negative stance to trademarks. Besides, "The Rust Programming Language and all other official projects, including this website, are generally dual-licensed: *Apache License, Version 2.0* · MIT license.", i.e. not GPL.
--- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
