Johan Myréen <[email protected]> writes: >>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.
Do you mean like putting telemetry into Audacity? That’s happened before and will happen again. >>> 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. I mean that Microsoft already did, so the argument against EEE is moot. >>So the Rust Foundation is already fully embraced and those companies can >>steer Rust the language at will. > > This is totally irrelevant. No it’s not: this policy does not protect against EEE, because the Embrace phase is already completed. The extend phase is then much more harmful: make Rust the language change so quickly that alternative implementations can’t keep up so they are forbidden from calling themselves Rust. > Are you saying Rust is nonfree software I didn’t say that. > Where do you draw the line between "those companies" and "friendly" companies? You said "protection against EEE" with the example of Microsoft. I’m pointing out that your argument defending this policy is moot, because this trademark policy is an amplifier for EEE. >>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. Yes, that’s what I said. "the GPL explicitly allows to disallow use of a trademark." 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)
