https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920 Debian Bug report logs - #1013920 rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Package: rust-all; Maintainer for rust-all is Debian Rust Maintainers ; Source for rust-all is src:rustc (PTS, buildd, popcon). Reported by: lkcl Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:57:01 UTC Severity: serious Tags: upstream Reply or subscribe to this bug. Toggle useless messages View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox --------------------------------------------------------------------- Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, lkcl@lkcl.net, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:57:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to lkcl : New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to lkcl@lkcl.net, Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:57:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply ): [libravatar] From: lkcl To: Debian Bug Tracking System Subject: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:52:42 +0100 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/msg00006.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: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:09:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to Sylvestre Ledru : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:09:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #10 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: Sylvestre Ledru To: lkcl , 1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:07:14 +0200 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 a 13:52, lkcl a ecrit : > 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/msg00006.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-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-rust-maintainers --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:27:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to Jeremy Bicha : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:27:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #15 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: Jeremy Bicha To: 1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:25:16 -0400 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:03:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to lkcl : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:03:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #20 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: lkcl To: Sylvestre Ledru ,lkcl ,1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:58:41 +0100 [Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)] 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 a 13:52, lkcl a ecrit : >> 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/msg00006.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-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net >> >https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-rust-maintainers [Message part 2 (text/html, inline)] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:39:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to Geert Stappers : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:39:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #25 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: Geert Stappers To: lkcl , 1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:27:19 +0200 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:03:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to lkcl : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:03:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #30 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: lkcl To: Geert Stappers ,1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:00:22 +0100 [Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)] 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. [Message part 2 (text/html, inline)] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to Geert Stappers : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #35 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: Geert Stappers To: lkcl , 1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:17:27 +0200 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:42:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to lkcl : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:42:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #40 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: lkcl To: Geert Stappers ,1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:38:46 +0100 [Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)] 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. [Message part 2 (text/html, inline)] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:03:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to lkcl : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:03:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #45 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: lkcl To: 1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#1013920: Info received (Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 19:00:33 +0100 [Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)] 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. [Message part 2 (text/html, inline)] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Tue, 28 Jun 2022 04:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to lkcl : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Tue, 28 Jun 2022 04:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #50 received at 1013920@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: lkcl To: 1013920@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#1013920: Info received (Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 05:16:13 +0100 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... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Rust Maintainers : Bug#1013920; Package rust-all. (Sun, 17 Jul 2022 16:15:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton : Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Rust Maintainers . (Sun, 17 Jul 2022 16:15:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #55 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply): [libravatar] From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton To: Debian Bug Tracking System Subject: Re: Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel") Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 16:31:35 +0100 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Send a report that this bug log contains spam. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Debian bug tracking system administrator . Last modified: Sun Jul 17 23:02:33 2022; Machine Name: buxtehude Debian Bug tracking system Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/. Copyright (c) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson, 2005-2017 Don Armstrong, and many other contributors.