Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Sylvestre Ledru]

I didn't say "required". I said that it is the usual (and recommended) 
practice from packagers.


On the desert island, you can patch rust packages as much as you want 
without forwarding anything upstream.


Le 19/07/2022 à 14:01, Damian Yerrick a écrit :

Requiring work to be done upstream fails the desert island test,
as described by Thomas Bushnell in

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Damian Yerrick]

Requiring work to be done upstream fails the desert island test,
as described by Thomas Bushnell in

> A good test case for whether a license is free (for issues like this)
> is whether a disconnected group of people on a desert island could
> distribute the software among themselves.  In the vim case, they
> cannot.  (For example, if the vim maintainer flies over the island and
> drops down a message saying "you must hereby send me your changes",
> how are the people down below to comply?)  The fact that the vim
> maintainer can send the request does not say anything about whether
> the people receiving it could reply.

> Documentation updates should be done upstream.
> Optimisations should be done upstream and not downstream.
> Such patches are part of the "adding patches that have been released
> upstream"
Updating documentation upstream, adding optimizations upstream,
or fixing security vulnerabilities upstream requires an Internet
connection when the changes are made.  It does not allow a relatively
isolated community with no consistent access to the Internet to make
these changes.

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: closed by Sylvestre Ledru (Re: Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel"))

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

ah!

some fascinating news (from another discussion) pulled up the fact
that ADA converted to a Certification Mark, back in 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.

*that* is what the Rust Foundation *should* be doing.
messing about prohibiting patching is going to end in tears.

if they instead state, "You must run the Test Suite (unmodified, as provided by
us), and it the results are a 100% pass then you're free and clear to distribute
without limitation [and use the word "rust"] in the distributed package"

then *that* would solve all of the problems.

unfortunately, as i said in comment #40
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920#40

if the Rust Foundation tries right now to convert the Trademark into a
Certification Mark it will be DENIED because they are selling product
(hats, T-shirts) and a Certification Mark Holder cannot compete with
its Licensees.

if they stop selling T-shirts and Merchandise and give assurances to
the Trademark Office that they will not do so then they should be ok
to convert to a Certification Mark.

l.

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: closed by Sylvestre Ledru (Re: Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel"))

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:06 AM Sylvestre Ledru  wrote:
>
> This bug is fixed.

i can see that you believe that to be true, otherwise you would
not have closed it.

what i am upset by is that you did not consider my opinion or
insight to be worth consulting.

i am deeply offended by that.

l.

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: closed by Sylvestre Ledru (Re: Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel"))

[Sylvestre Ledru]

This bug is fixed. Please don't reopen it.
We are both now compliant with the DFSG and the Rust trademark.

I do understand that you feel differently but this worked well for years 
for Firefox and Thunderbird and

Debian derivatives. This isn't a different situation.

Regards,
Sylvestre


/
/

Le 18/07/2022 à 11:29, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a écrit :

reopen 1013920

sorry, Sylvestre, if you could possibly wait, on something this serious,
for a response as to whether the fix is valid, that will avoid me having
to spend my time reopening the issue or creating a second bugreport.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:21 AM Debian Bug Tracking System
  wrote:

This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
which was filed against the rust-all package:

#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as 
"iceweasel")

It has been closed by Sylvestre Ledru.

___
Pkg-rust-maintainers mailing list
pkg-rust-maintain...@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-rust-maintainers

Bug#1013920: closed by Sylvestre Ledru (Re: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel"))

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

reopen 1013920

sorry, Sylvestre, if you could possibly wait, on something this serious,
for a response as to whether the fix is valid, that will avoid me having
to spend my time reopening the issue or creating a second bugreport.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:21 AM Debian Bug Tracking System
 wrote:
>
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> which was filed against the rust-all package:
>
> #1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation 
> as "iceweasel")
>
> It has been closed by Sylvestre Ledru .

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:16 AM Sylvestre Ledru  wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing it to our attention, I have consulted with the Rust
> foundation, we have agreed a change, we think this change solves it.

ah! we may have just had some cross-over.

> See
> https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/
> for the updated policy.

did you mean the sections "fixing local paths" (etc)?
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920#60

no, that would not be sufficient.  it still violates DFSG (most of it).

there is also the issue that even placing a public copy of source
code on a git repository also constitutes "Distribution".

i gave some suggestions which would be much more reasonable
(and general) already, they may have been missed:

   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920#40

those much more general statements basically say

"we trust you not to do any damage under our name"

the new additions basically say:

"you're clearly too stupid to be trusted so we're going to
 lock out your rights"

it should therefore come as no surprise that trying to go in
that direction would directly conflict with everything that DFSG
strives towards.

l.

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

i've opened up a second bug for gcc because it is also about to
become affected, not in the same way, but in a worse way.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1015242

whilst 50% of DFSG 2 is violated by the Rust Trademark
(as it stands, with the new clauses), gcc is in an even worse
situation because the Rust Trademark conficts directly with
the GPL as well.

this is a complex multi-faceted issue: please do not close the
bugreport until all facets of the conflict brought to your attention
have been resolved.

or... you can... but that will force me into the position of re-raising
another report, and i am too busy to do that, and you risk me
giving up and not caring.

l.

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Sylvestre Ledru]

 Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language
 or the Cargo package manager, provided that the modifications are
limited to:
 * porting the software to a different architecture
 * fixing local paths
 * adding patches that have been released upstream
 * adding patches that have been reported upstream, provided
 * that the patch is removed if it is not accepted upstream

note that this excludes the right to:

* add a patch to add documentation

Documentation updates should be done upstream.

* add a patch to add a Debian README

This is purely Debian documentation. They do not impact Rustc.

* add a patch to add a debian/copyright file

Same.

* add a patch to add optimisations
As the initial packager of Rustc (and llvm), I would reject such 
changes. Optimisations should

be done upstream and not downstream.

* add a patch to fix serious security vulnerabilities
Such patches are part of the "adding patches that have been released 
upstream"




all of the limitations whilst looking perfectly reasonable are unfortunately
in direct conflict with not only 50% of the DFSG but also in direct violation
of the GPL (under which gcc is released).


gcc specific issues should be on the gcc side, not rustc.

Cheers,
Sylvestre

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Sylvestre Ledru]

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, I have consulted with the Rust 
foundation, we have agreed a change, we think this change solves it.


See 
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/ 
for the updated policy.


Cheers,
Sylvestre

Le 27/06/2022 à 13:52, lkcl a écrit :

Package: rust-all
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream
Justification: Policy 2.1

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-s-freedom-flaws/11533
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2021/05/msg6.html
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/

this is an extremely serious situation that exposes debian to a greater
level of risk that was undergone for the last Mozilla-Foundation
Trademark fiasco, iceweasel

Rust's Trademark requirements are that "you must seek our explicit
permission before distributing patches".

 Uses that require explicit approval

 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.

there are dozens of such patches and every single one of them, unless
explicit permission has been sought, is a DIRECT Trademark violation

 https://sources.debian.org/patches/rustc/1.36.0+dfsg1-2/

the over-ride of the Trademark on "Free" software is Lawful and
in this case makes rust (and cargo) non-free software.

unlike the Iceweasel debacle, the linux kernel is upstream merging
rust, potentially making the entire linux kernel critically dependent
on a non-free compiler.

there is the additional issue that although Debian might seek and
be granted explicit permission for a Trademark License Grant to
Distribute, that does not cover Derivatives, which would also
need to explicitly seek their own permission

 https://www.debian.org/derivatives/
 https://devuan.org

this has been discussed that DFSG Guideline 8 is violated by even
attempting to seek a License specific to Debian

 https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg45464.html

this is an extremely serious situation that either requires pulling
rust and cargo from debian or a rename of both rust and cargo exactly
as was done with iceweasel.

failure to do so is also extremely serious because Unlawful Distribution
may still be considered grounds for financial compensation as well as
a Legal Notice to Cease and Desist, and also to remove all public and private
use of the Trademark from all Records.  mailing lists, bugtracker,
debian archives - everything.

this one cannot be ignored.


-- System Information:

___
Pkg-rust-maintainers mailing list
pkg-rust-maintain...@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-rust-maintainers

Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[lkcl]

https://developers.slashdot.org/story/22/07/17/0110250/gcc-rust-approved-by-steering-committee-beta-likely-next-april

and now it becomes Unlawful for Debian to distribute gcc with patches,
as well [without the explicit consent of the Mozilla Foundation, an action
which is in direct violation of DFSG]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:38 PM lkcl  wrote:
>
> the alternative is to work with the Mozilla Foundation to rewrite their 
> Trademark License.
>
> the *intent* is clear, they do not trust Licensees (distributors) to "damage" 
> the rust API, which is perfectly reasonable.
>
> therefore, why don't they just say that?
>
> "if a distributor performs source code modifications to a
> published revision that cause security holes, cause API or
> language incompatibilities or cause other end-user
> complaints, then this a Trademark Violation"
>
> something along these lines is waaay more sensible than pissing about trying 
> to completely unreasonably "lock down" the source code.

this appears to have been added recently (or i missed it):

Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language
or the Cargo package manager, provided that the modifications are
limited to:
* porting the software to a different architecture
* fixing local paths
* adding patches that have been released upstream
* adding patches that have been reported upstream, provided
* that the patch is removed if it is not accepted upstream

note that this excludes the right to:

* add a patch to add documentation
* add a patch to add a Debian README
* add a patch to add a debian/copyright file
* add a patch to add optimisations
* add a patch to fix serious security vulnerabilities
* convey to others the right to modify [GPL Copyright License requirement]

all of the limitations whilst looking perfectly reasonable are unfortunately
in direct conflict with not only 50% of the DFSG but also in direct violation
of the GPL (under which gcc is released).

l.

Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

https://developers.slashdot.org/story/22/07/17/0110250/gcc-rust-approved-by-steering-committee-beta-likely-next-april

and now it becomes Unlawful for Debian to distribute gcc with patches,
as well [without the explicit consent of the Mozilla Foundation, an action
which is in direct violation of DFSG]

l.

Bug#1013920: Info received (Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel"))

[lkcl]

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the-debian-free-software-guidelines

urrr 50% of the clauses of DFSG 2.1 are violated

section 2.1 3 is violated

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them
to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.

the additional conditions remove the redistribution rights normally associated
with Free Software Licenses, requiring explicit consent should "modifications
and derived works" be made.

section 2.1.5 is violated

5 No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

distribibutors constitute a "group of persons" and consequently they are
discriminated against by the imposition of the restriction requiring explicit
permission to modify.

section 2.1 4 is also violated

4 Integrity of The Author’s Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
 modified form only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files”
 with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at
build time.
The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built
from modified source code.

with the Trademark License creating an additional (Aggregate) License that
overrides and nullifies the "normal" expected Copyright Licenses, section 4
is violated.

section 2.1 7 is violated

7 Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional
license by those parties.

the imposition of the additional License Conditions from the Trademark
*are themselves* a violation of this condition

section 2.1 7 is violated as already discussed

section 2.1 9 is violated

9 License Must Not Contaminate Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software.

given that the linux kernel will soon be critically dependent on having
a rust compiler...

Bug#1013920: Info received (Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel"))

[lkcl]

jeremy i didn't see your reply until i checked online.  you spotted the second 
half:

We will usually allow these uses as long as the modifications
are (1) relatively small and (2) very clearly communicated to
end-users.

i did not include this because DFSG 8 is already violated by the first
half.  the *very fact* of needing to ask is an unreasonable burden
that is directly in conflict with the entire Libre/Open Concept.

imagine a Copyright License that said, "you MUST come to us to
ask permission to distribute modified versions oh but otherwise this License is 
a Free/Open One, No Really"

absolutely everyone would freak out and agree that is non-free, and the package 
either moved to nonfree or pulled entirely.

this unfortunately is exactly what the Rust Trademark has done:
added *additional* Lawfully-enforceable requirements that must
legally be complied with or suffer the consequences.

* It's Free because Copyright License BSD (whatever)
* Oh But under the Trademark We Don't Grant Distribution
   Rights for Derivative Works

and no, the existence of the Copyright License does *not* invalidate or 
override the Legal requirement to also comply with Trademark Law.  it is 
astonishing the number of FOSS developers who genuinely believe that they can 
blatantly disregard Trademark Law "Because Open Source"

> For instance, here is an excerpt without context from Debian's policy:
> "You cannot use Debian trademarks in a company or organization name or
> as the name of a product or service."

this is standard fare as part of Trademark Law.  it causes "confusion".

l.

Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[lkcl]

the alternative is to work with the Mozilla Foundation to rewrite their 
Trademark License.

the *intent* is clear, they do not trust Licensees (distributors) to "damage" 
the rust API, which is perfectly reasonable.

therefore, why don't they just say that?

"if a distributor performs source code modifications to a
 published revision that cause security holes, cause API or
 language incompatibilities or cause other end-user
 complaints, then this a Trademark Violation"

something along these lines is waaay more sensible than pissing about trying to 
completely unreasonably "lock down" the source code.

normally i would suggest that they convert the Trademark to a Certification 
Mark because the rust API is a Standard, and its unit tests the Compliance 
Suite, but the fact that they sell T-Shirts and merchandise prohibits that from 
being accepted (sale of products including merchandise is commercial 
competition with Licensees, and is prohibited under Certification Mark Law but 
*not* Trademark Law ).

l.

Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Geert Stappers]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 03:00:22PM +0100, lkcl wrote:
> hi Geert,

;-)


> sorry i have an odd mailer which can only toppost.

Acknowledge on "odd mailer"  and thanks for NOT
poluting the Bug Tracking System with topposts (thanks
for preventing needless scrolling)

> as in the initial post, i found a link that indicates that such explicit
> requests are in direct violation of DFSG Section 8, namely that others
> (including Derivatives) may take the source that goes through Debian
> and continue to use and distribute it without limit or restriction.

Ah, I missed that.


> the message to the Mozilla Foundation needs to be more along the lines,
> "please remove the restriction from the Trademark License so that we
> may comply with DFSG Section 8, otherwise we have to do an iceweasel".

Yeah, avoiding another iceweasel is a good thing.


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Silence is hard to parse

Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[lkcl]

hi Geert,

sorry i have an odd mailer which can only toppost.

as in the initial post, i found a link that indicates that such explicit 
requests are in direct violation of DFSG Section 8, namely that others 
(including Derivatives) may take the source that goes through Debian and 
continue to use and distribute it without limit or restriction.

the message to the Mozilla Foundation needs to be more along the lines, "please 
remove the restriction from the Trademark License so that we may comply with 
DFSG Section 8, otherwise we have to do an iceweasel".

l.

Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Geert Stappers]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 01:58:41PM +0100, lkcl wrote:
> everything is "fine" as long as:
>
> 1) the Mozilla Foundation acts reasonably and non-discriminatorily
> (FRAND applies to Trademarks just as it applies to patent Licensing)
> 2) the Mozilla Foundation does not appreciate quite how much power it
> actually has under Trademark Law.
>
> given that this is between Free Software Groups i would expect the
> discussion to remain civil and reasonable, and for them to drop or
> modify the unachievable nonfree constraint, but please for goodness
> sake do not let the civility of the interaction lull you into a sense
> of false safety.
>
> under the Trademark as they have defined it, the Mozilla Foundation
> is perfectly permitted to issue Debian a Legal Notice to Cease and
> Desist distribution of the Unlawfully patched rustc binaries.
>
> l.


Hi Luke,
Hi all others,


Let's continue thinking several steps ahead.

* Allow all room to move forward
* Accept there is NO  "request pending" documentation,
  trust https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920#10
  that it is "work in progress"
* Ask over six weeks how much you should worry about this
* Meanwhile team-up with other Linux distributions
* Meanwhile create a concept letter you want to have, like
We, Mozilla Foundation grant these Linux distributions
* foo
* bar
* debian
* baz
to distribute our Rust and our Cargo that we still
can recognice as our Rust and as our Cargo.
* Continue enjoying Rust and Cargo



Regards
Geert Stappers


P.S.

a Trade Mark is a request for respect, not a demand for respect.
And yes, respect is something like trust, it has to be earnt.
-- 
Silence is hard to parse

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[lkcl]

everything is "fine" as long as:

1) the Mozilla Foundation acts reasonably and non-discriminatorily (FRAND 
applies to Trademarks just as it applies to patent Licensing)
2) the Mozilla Foundation does not appreciate quite how much power it actually 
has under Trademark Law.

given that this is between Free Software Groups i would expect the discussion 
to remain civil and reasonable, and for them to drop or modify the unachievable 
nonfree constraint, but please for goodness sake do not let the civility of the 
interaction lull you into a sense of false safety.

under the Trademark as they have defined it, the Mozilla Foundation is 
perfectly permitted to issue Debian a Legal Notice to Cease and Desist 
distribution of the Unlawfully patched rustc binaries.

l.




On June 27, 2022 1:07:14 PM GMT+01:00, Sylvestre Ledru  
wrote:
>Hello
>
>I don't think it is a big deal but I will chat with some people on the
>Rust side about this.
>
>Cheers,
>Sylvestre (who managed the iceweasel/firefox thing)
>
>
>Le 27/06/2022 à 13:52, lkcl a écrit :
>> Package: rust-all
>> Severity: serious
>> Tags: upstream
>> Justification: Policy 2.1
>> 
>> https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-s-freedom-flaws/11533
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2021/05/msg6.html
>>
>https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/
>> 
>> this is an extremely serious situation that exposes debian to a
>greater
>> level of risk that was undergone for the last Mozilla-Foundation
>> Trademark fiasco, iceweasel
>> 
>> Rust's Trademark requirements are that "you must seek our explicit
>> permission before distributing patches".
>> 
>>  Uses that require explicit approval
>> 
>>  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.
>> 
>> there are dozens of such patches and every single one of them, unless
>> explicit permission has been sought, is a DIRECT Trademark violation
>> 
>>  https://sources.debian.org/patches/rustc/1.36.0+dfsg1-2/
>> 
>> the over-ride of the Trademark on "Free" software is Lawful and
>> in this case makes rust (and cargo) non-free software.
>> 
>> unlike the Iceweasel debacle, the linux kernel is upstream merging
>> rust, potentially making the entire linux kernel critically dependent
>> on a non-free compiler.
>> 
>> there is the additional issue that although Debian might seek and
>> be granted explicit permission for a Trademark License Grant to
>> Distribute, that does not cover Derivatives, which would also
>> need to explicitly seek their own permission
>> 
>>  https://www.debian.org/derivatives/
>>  https://devuan.org
>> 
>> this has been discussed that DFSG Guideline 8 is violated by even
>> attempting to seek a License specific to Debian
>> 
>> 
>https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg45464.html
>> 
>> this is an extremely serious situation that either requires pulling
>> rust and cargo from debian or a rename of both rust and cargo exactly
>> as was done with iceweasel.
>> 
>> failure to do so is also extremely serious because Unlawful
>Distribution
>> may still be considered grounds for financial compensation as well as
>> a Legal Notice to Cease and Desist, and also to remove all public and
>private
>> use of the Trademark from all Records.  mailing lists, bugtracker,
>> debian archives - everything.
>> 
>> this one cannot be ignored.
>> 
>> 
>> -- System Information:
>> 
>> ___
>> Pkg-rust-maintainers mailing list
>> pkg-rust-maintain...@alioth-lists.debian.net
>>
>https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-rust-maintainers

Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Jeremy Bicha]

The full paragraph [1] is
"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. We will usually
allow these uses as long as the modifications are (1) relatively small
and (2) very clearly communicated to end-users."

By only providing half of that quote in your bug report, I think
you're missing important context.

I think that would probably be easy enough to comply with. I also
think that is fairly in line with trademark policies in general. If
someone significantly modifies Debian, I believe the Debian Project
would insist that they use a different name for their product despite
the DFSG and despite that Debian is free and open source.

For instance, here is an excerpt without context from Debian's policy:
"You cannot use Debian trademarks in a company or organization name or
as the name of a product or service."

[1] https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/
[2] https://www.debian.org/trademark

Thank you,
Jeremy Bicha

Bug#1013920: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[Sylvestre Ledru]

Hello

I don't think it is a big deal but I will chat with some people on the Rust 
side about this.

Cheers,
Sylvestre (who managed the iceweasel/firefox thing)


Le 27/06/2022 à 13:52, lkcl a écrit :

Package: rust-all
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream
Justification: Policy 2.1

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-s-freedom-flaws/11533
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2021/05/msg6.html
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/

this is an extremely serious situation that exposes debian to a greater
level of risk that was undergone for the last Mozilla-Foundation
Trademark fiasco, iceweasel

Rust's Trademark requirements are that "you must seek our explicit
permission before distributing patches".

 Uses that require explicit approval

 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.

there are dozens of such patches and every single one of them, unless
explicit permission has been sought, is a DIRECT Trademark violation

 https://sources.debian.org/patches/rustc/1.36.0+dfsg1-2/

the over-ride of the Trademark on "Free" software is Lawful and
in this case makes rust (and cargo) non-free software.

unlike the Iceweasel debacle, the linux kernel is upstream merging
rust, potentially making the entire linux kernel critically dependent
on a non-free compiler.

there is the additional issue that although Debian might seek and
be granted explicit permission for a Trademark License Grant to
Distribute, that does not cover Derivatives, which would also
need to explicitly seek their own permission

 https://www.debian.org/derivatives/
 https://devuan.org

this has been discussed that DFSG Guideline 8 is violated by even
attempting to seek a License specific to Debian

 https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg45464.html

this is an extremely serious situation that either requires pulling
rust and cargo from debian or a rename of both rust and cargo exactly
as was done with iceweasel.

failure to do so is also extremely serious because Unlawful Distribution
may still be considered grounds for financial compensation as well as
a Legal Notice to Cease and Desist, and also to remove all public and private
use of the Trademark from all Records.  mailing lists, bugtracker,
debian archives - everything.

this one cannot be ignored.


-- System Information:

___
Pkg-rust-maintainers mailing list
pkg-rust-maintain...@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-rust-maintainers

Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

[lkcl]

Package: rust-all
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream
Justification: Policy 2.1

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-s-freedom-flaws/11533
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2021/05/msg6.html
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/

this is an extremely serious situation that exposes debian to a greater
level of risk that was undergone for the last Mozilla-Foundation
Trademark fiasco, iceweasel

Rust's Trademark requirements are that "you must seek our explicit
permission before distributing patches".

Uses that require explicit approval

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. 

there are dozens of such patches and every single one of them, unless
explicit permission has been sought, is a DIRECT Trademark violation

https://sources.debian.org/patches/rustc/1.36.0+dfsg1-2/

the over-ride of the Trademark on "Free" software is Lawful and
in this case makes rust (and cargo) non-free software.

unlike the Iceweasel debacle, the linux kernel is upstream merging
rust, potentially making the entire linux kernel critically dependent
on a non-free compiler.

there is the additional issue that although Debian might seek and
be granted explicit permission for a Trademark License Grant to
Distribute, that does not cover Derivatives, which would also
need to explicitly seek their own permission

https://www.debian.org/derivatives/
https://devuan.org

this has been discussed that DFSG Guideline 8 is violated by even
attempting to seek a License specific to Debian

https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg45464.html

this is an extremely serious situation that either requires pulling
rust and cargo from debian or a rename of both rust and cargo exactly
as was done with iceweasel.

failure to do so is also extremely serious because Unlawful Distribution
may still be considered grounds for financial compensation as well as
a Legal Notice to Cease and Desist, and also to remove all public and private
use of the Trademark from all Records.  mailing lists, bugtracker,
debian archives - everything.

this one cannot be ignored.


-- System Information: