a (private) discussion has, fascinatingly, uncovered this, from 1987:
http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/policy/trademrk.txt
In order to be a validated Ada compiler, a compiler must pass
an extensive suite of programs called the Ada Compiler Validation
Capability (ACVC). The AJPO has adopted a certification mark to show
that a compiler has passed the ACVC and is a validated compiler or
a compiler derived from a validated base compiler as defined in the
Ada Compiler Validations Procedures and Guidelines (version 1.1 of
which was issued in January 1987). The certification mark may also
be used on certain literature accompanying or documenting a validated
compiler. Information concerning the proper use of the certification
mark was distributed to interested parties during the summer of 1987.
what that tells us is that there is precedent for a Computer Language
to apply for and be granted a *Certification Mark* which was enforced
through the extremely simple process of running an Authorised
Certification Suite.
the modern name for such is "test suite".
if the Rust Foundation were to add an extremely simple phrase
"to be able to use the word rust in a distributed compiler your
modifications must 100% pass the test suite without modifying
the test suite"
then all the problems and pain goes away.
as i said: the Rust Foundation is the world's first FOSS Project
attempting to create a Certification Mark (and doing a poor-man's
job of it).
a thorough investigation of how it was done for ADA should reveal
how it can be properly done for gccrs and rustc.
i feel reasonably confident in saying that if i had the time to look
up discussions on this topic, there would almost certainly be requests
from the Rust Foundation that gccrs pass the exact same test suites
as provided with rustc.
A Certification Mark is the proper way to formally and legally enforce such
requirements. telling people they cannot patch the source code without
permission is a troublesome and tiresome and non-trusting way to attempt
the same objective.
l.
