Re: Rust trademark policy

[Bone Baboon]

Bone Baboon writes:
> Sections
> * Rust trademark policy
> * Impact on free software projects
>
> # Rust trademark policy

The conversation about the Rust Trademark policy issue has been
happening on several mailing lists and in different IRC channels.  I
decided to write a new summary that bringing it all together, adds new
information and cleans it up.

The summary is located at
<https://bonebaboon.tilde.site/rust-trademark-policy-issue/>.

The Git repository for the summary that can be cloned is at
<https://bonebaboon.tilde.site/git/rust-trademark-policy-issue.git>.

There is also a website for browsing the source code at
<https://bonebaboon.tilde.site/git/rust-trademark-policy-issue/>.

Rust trademark policy

[Bone Baboon]

Sections
* Rust trademark policy
* Impact on free software projects

# Rust trademark policy

Is Rust not free software because of the Rust trademark policy?


Information on the four software freedoms is here:
.

The trademark section of the Rust readme file
 says:

```
The Rust programming language is an open source, community project
governed by a core team. It is also sponsored by the Mozilla Foundation
(“Mozilla”), which owns and protects the Rust and Cargo trademarks and
logos (the “Rust Trademarks”).

If you want to use these names or brands, please read the media guide.
```
Note that it says that the Mozilla Foundation owns the Rust and Cargo
trademarks.

The is the media guide linked to in the trademark section of the Rust
readme file: 


The sections of  that
look relevant to this question at hand are:

* The "Trademark policy" section says "most commercial uses require
  permission".  This appears to interfere with "The freedom to run the
  program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).". 

* The "Uses that require explicit approval" section says "Distributing a
  modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo package
  manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written
  permission from the Rust core team.".  This appears to interfere with
  "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
  (freedom 3).". 

 says "This document is
not an official statement of Mozilla trademark policy, but serves to
clarify Mozilla’s trademark policy as it relates to Rust.". 

Niko said in

"You are correct that we intended the trademark to apply when
distributing a package or other binary called "Rust" -- and in
particular that if modifications are made, then we would expect a
trademark request". This appears to interfere with: 
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
  (freedom 3). 

When I asked about this in #hyperbola@Freenode I was referred to
.  This open
issue on the Rust repository issue tracker shows that this is a current
issue.  In the issue nikomatsakis said "The foundation will be reviewing
the trademark policy, but it will be up to the board to decide the terms
that are selected."

# Impact on free software projects

If Rust is not free software then that would impact many free software
project. 

One example is Linux.  Recently there was a RFC for adding support for
Rust to the Linux kernel .  Linus
Torvalds's response is here .
This would also impact Linux forks such as Linux-libre.

Another example is Firefox.  says "Servo is written
in Rust, and shares code with Mozilla Firefox". This would also impact
Firefox forks such as LibreWolf, IceCat and Tor browser.

Re: Rust trademark policy

[Bone Baboon]

After further reading on the topic and after receiving addition
feedback I have written an update to my understanding of the Rust
trademark issue.
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2021-06/msg0.html>

Bone Baboon writes:

> Sections
> * Rust trademark policy
> * Impact on free software projects
>
> # Rust trademark policy
>
> Is Rust not free software because of the Rust trademark policy?
> <https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedom_flaws>
>
> Information on the four software freedoms is here:
> <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html>.
>
> The trademark section of the Rust readme file
> <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/README.md> says:
>
> ```
> The Rust programming language is an open source, community project
> governed by a core team. It is also sponsored by the Mozilla Foundation
> (“Mozilla”), which owns and protects the Rust and Cargo trademarks and
> logos (the “Rust Trademarks”).
>
> If you want to use these names or brands, please read the media guide.
> ```
> Note that it says that the Mozilla Foundation owns the Rust and Cargo
> trademarks.
>
> The is the media guide linked to in the trademark section of the Rust
> readme file: 
> <https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide>
>
> The sections of <https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide> that
> look relevant to this question at hand are:
>
> * The "Trademark policy" section says "most commercial uses require
>   permission".  This appears to interfere with "The freedom to run the
>   program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).". 
>
> * The "Uses that require explicit approval" section says "Distributing a
>   modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo package
>   manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written
>   permission from the Rust core team.".  This appears to interfere with
>   "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>   (freedom 3).". 
>
> <https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide> says "This document is
> not an official statement of Mozilla trademark policy, but serves to
> clarify Mozilla’s trademark policy as it relates to Rust.". 
>
> Niko said in
> <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53287#issuecomment-414472372>
> "You are correct that we intended the trademark to apply when
> distributing a package or other binary called "Rust" -- and in
> particular that if modifications are made, then we would expect a
> trademark request". This appears to interfere with: 
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
> * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>   (freedom 3). 
>
> When I asked about this in #hyperbola@Freenode I was referred to
> <https://github.com/rust-lang/foundation-faq-2020/issues/35>.  This open
> issue on the Rust repository issue tracker shows that this is a current
> issue.  In the issue nikomatsakis said "The foundation will be reviewing
> the trademark policy, but it will be up to the board to decide the terms
> that are selected."
>
> # Impact on free software projects
>
> If Rust is not free software then that would impact many free software
> project. 
>
> One example is Linux.  Recently there was a RFC for adding support for
> Rust to the Linux kernel <https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1023>.  Linus
> Torvalds's response is here <https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1099>.
> This would also impact Linux forks such as Linux-libre.
>
> Another example is Firefox. <https://servo.org/> says "Servo is written
> in Rust, and shares code with Mozilla Firefox". This would also impact
> Firefox forks such as LibreWolf, IceCat and Tor browser.

Re: Rust trademark policy

[Bone Baboon]

Bone Baboon writes:

> After further reading on the topic and after receiving addition
> feedback I have written an update to my understanding of the Rust
> trademark issue.
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2021-06/msg0.html>

The Free Software Foundation's licensing team will be taking a serious
look at the Rust trademark policy issue (no time frame was given).
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2021-06/msg1.html>

Re: Rust trademark policy

[Bone Baboon]

Walter Landry writes:

> Bone Baboon writes:
>> * The "Uses that require explicit approval" section says "Distributing a
>>   modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo package
>>   manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written
>>   permission from the Rust core team.".  This appears to interfere with
>>   "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>>   (freedom 3).". 
>
> This is more or less the same exact problem that caused Debian to rename
> Firefox to Iceweasel.  Eventually, Debian convinced Mozilla to allow
> Debian to use Firefox to refer to the modified versions that Debian
> distributes.
>
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006

Thank you for sharing that link.

> Ideally, Debian would get a similar dispensation for Rust.

A better outcome than getting as Debian specific dispensation would be
for the Rust trademark policy to be modified to resolve this issue or to
rename Rust and Cargo when distributing copies or modified versions.

Getting a Debian specific dispensation for Rust would not appear to meet
The Debian Free Software Guidelines specifically 8 License Must Not Be
Specific to Debian.

The Debian Free Software Guidelines section 8 License Must Not Be
Specific to Debian:

```
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian
and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of
the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed
should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction
with the Debian system.
```

In <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006>:

```
Mozilla recognizes that patches applied to Iceweasel/Firefox don't
impact the quality of the product.
Patches which should be reported upstream to improve the product always
have been forward upstream by the Debian packagers. Mozilla agrees about
specific patches to facilitate the support of Iceweasel on architecture
supported by Debian or Debian-specific patches.

More generally, Mozilla trusts the Debian packagers to use their best
judgment to achieve the same quality as the official Firefox binaries.

In case of derivatives of Debian, Firefox branding can be used as long
as the patches applied are in the same category as described above.
Ubuntu having a different packaging, this does not apply to that
distribution.
```

This appears to be in contradiction to "8 License Must Not Be Specific
to Debian".  The key issue is that the Rust trademark policy is trying
to add further distribution restrictions on copies and modified version
that the license does not have.  In this way the trademark is acting
like additional terms to the license with the disadvantage of not being
well documented and being poorly understood as they have not been
reviewed by the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative.

cowsay questionable files

[Bone Baboon]

cowsay has many questionable files that could attract copyright and
trademark enforcement action.  For further details see the pull
requested linked below.

Debian packages cowsay.  The cowsay source code repository is
.

The cowsay repository's CONTRIBUTING.md says "Issues and pull requests
on that repository will be ignored.".  I submitted a pull request
.  I expect that
it will be ignored.

There is a fork of cowsay  that
claims to be maintained.  I have submitted a pull request to it as
well. 

The pull requests remove the questionable files.

Re: Legal status of Audacity in releases newer than Bullseye

[Bone Baboon]

jorkanof...@tutanota.com writes:

> To who it may concern
>
> As you know the audacity project has been recently acquired by musegroup. 
> Since then there have been a series of changes impacting Audacity. One such 
> change is that telemetry has been included in newer versions of audacity no 
> the one currently in the Debian repository for Bullseye and Sid (version 
> 2.4.2), and has a requirement which both violates the GPLv2 license, the 
> GPLv3 license as well as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. There has been 
> a fork, which removes the questionable code, which can be found here: 
> https://github.com/cookiengineer/audacity. Here is the github issue thread 
> explaining the license violation issue with regards to the privacy policy: 
> https://github.com/audacity/audacity/issues/1213 What is the plan going 
> forward, after the release of Debian 11 (since version 2.4.2 is unaffected by 
> the licensing isuse) in regards to Audacity in the Debian package repository? 
> Should this GPL2 violation be reported, if so to what organization? How will 
> it impact the audacity package in bullseye-backports, bookworm as well as 
> newer versions?
>
> Looking forward towards your answers
>
> Regards
>
> Jorkano

Here is some additional details.

Two key issues with Muse Group's new privacy policy for Audacity are the
on by default telemetry and that Audacity can no longer be used for any
purpose contradicting freedom 0.

# On by default telemetry

On by default telemetry is being introduced to Audacity.  The on by
default telemetry collects IP address information, system information
and Audacity version information.




# Freedom 0

Audacity can no longer be used for any purpose.  Section 3 of the Muse
Group's new privacy policy for Audacity
 says:

> 3 Minors
>
> 1 The App we provide is not intended for individuals below the age
> of 13. If you are under 13 years old, please do not use the App.

This age restriction contradicts freedom 0.


> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose
> (freedom 0).

This age restriction also contradicts Audacity's GPL version 2 license
 which
says:

> The act of running the Program is not restricted

Re: cowsay questionable files

[Bone Baboon]

Bone Baboon writes:

> cowsay has many questionable files that could attract copyright and
> trademark enforcement action.  For further details see the pull
> requested linked below.
>
> Debian packages cowsay.  The cowsay source code repository is
> <https://github.com/tnalpgge/rank-amateur-cowsay>.
>
> The cowsay repository's CONTRIBUTING.md says "Issues and pull requests
> on that repository will be ignored.".  I submitted a pull request
> <https://github.com/tnalpgge/rank-amateur-cowsay/pull/4>.  I expect that
> it will be ignored.
>
> There is a fork of cowsay <https://github.com/cowsay-org/cowsay> that
> claims to be maintained.  I have submitted a pull request to it as
> well. <https://github.com/cowsay-org/cowsay/pull/16>
>
> The pull requests remove the questionable files.

In this response to the pull request I submitted about the
questionable files in the cowsay repository
<https://github.com/tnalpgge/rank-amateur-cowsay/pull/4#issuecomment-878092487>
apjanke is requesting feedback.

> If there are any actual IP lawyers, relevant IP owners, or
> distributions who redistribute cowsay who would like to weigh in on
> this, I'd definitely like to hear what you have to say.

For those who want to respond to apjanke but do not have or do not
want to use a GitHub account I can link this email thread in the
discussion about the pull request.