[HN Gopher] Debian Violating Rust Trademark
___________________________________________________________________
Debian Violating Rust Trademark
Author : johnklos
Score : 18 points
Date : 2022-07-17 20:23 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bugs.debian.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (bugs.debian.org)
| [deleted]
| zarzavat wrote:
| Seems a justified policy for a compiler. If you are distributing
| a patched version of a compiler that is not from upstream you
| absolutely need to make users aware of that fact, so that they
| can decide whether they want to trust you or not. It is a
| security issue, because the effects of using a broken compiler
| can go beyond one machine.
|
| Also, Rust needs some legal mechanism to shut down malware.
| Otherwise someone could throw up a build of "Rust" that does bad
| things to compile products and they would have no legal recourse
| to shut that down.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > Otherwise someone could throw up a build of "Rust" that does
| bad things to compile products and they would have no legal
| recourse to shut that down.
|
| If someone is distributing malicious software, 1) I don't think
| they care about whether anyone has legal recourse to stop them,
| partly because 2) they've already taken steps to become
| anonymous and resist takedowns.
| weare138 wrote:
| It's odd to try and enforce something like this through
| something as broad as a copyright clause on an open-source
| project. If it was restricted to commercial distributions of
| Rust a copyright restriction would make sense. Consumers could
| be confused into thinking it was officially connected to or
| endorsed by the Rust project which is really what copyright
| violations come down to legally.
|
| Debian is open-source, open about the patches it applies and
| not in any way purporting it's the 'official' upstream Rust
| distribution or the patches are official upstream patches. I
| don't see how someone could make the argument the Debian
| project is somehow legally acting in bad faith with intent in a
| way that could either confuse consumers or cause financial
| damage and/or harm the Rust projects reputation.
|
| To me claims like this just set a bad precedence in the open-
| source software ecosystem. The broadness of the clause has
| serious potential for abuse. It seems like a way to leverage
| the benefits of the open-source community while still
| protecting IP through copyright claims. That's how we ended up
| with the Oracle/Java debacle. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying
| the Rust project is just flat out evil like Oracle but the
| potential for abuse is there and definitely not in the spirit
| or intention of open-source software.
| im3w1l wrote:
| A busted compiler is no more serious than a busted kernel, or
| busted shell. And yet so many shells can provide /bin/sh. Good
| thing or my shebang would have to be customized a million times
| for different people.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Or just ship two version, call one oxidationweasel or whatever,
| add your patches, continue using it for important stuff, and ship
| normal rust as rust, for people who are into that.
| jiripospisil wrote:
| Is there actually someone who builds the official source as is?
|
| Arch: https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-
| packages/tree/packages...
|
| Alpine:
| https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/community/rust?h=mas...
|
| FreeBSD: https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/lang/rust/files
| jamincan wrote:
| I know that distributions commonly do this, but what exactly
| are they changing?
| jjgreen wrote:
| So Rust gets thrown out of Debian & derivatives, not a big deal.
| But soon the Linux kernel will depend on a non-free compiler?
| Huge.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Is there anything from the FSF or some other authoritative or
| reliable source that says rustc is actually non-free because of
| this?
| rurban wrote:
| rust is still free.
|
| just debian prefers to ship a stripped variant and calls it
| rust and cargo, which violates the rust trademark. debian can
| call it debrust, and the kernel can choose to support this and
| the official rustc.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton apparently knows nothing about how
| trademark law works.
|
| Having something trademarked does not mean the owner of the
| trademark has absolute control over its use and force you remove
| any mention of said trademark. Trademark protects your mark from
| being used by others, commercially, to describe or name their
| products.
|
| I cannot open a burger stand and call it McDonalds. I absolutely
| can have a "McDonalds Enthusiasts website", and there is fuck-all
| McDonalds can do about it in court, because my use of the
| trademark is descriptive. I can have a mailing list for fast food
| enthusiasts for said website, and we can discuss McFlurries and
| Big Macs and all manner of McDonalds products that are
| trademarked. I can sell a "Big Mac Storage Container."
|
| And further: no, there's no grounds for financial compensation
| because Rust would have to prove damages, and good luck with
| that.
|
| Further demonstration that Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
| apparently knows nothing about how trademark law 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".
|
| Debian can say that all it likes, and corporations do often try
| to give people the impression that they have less rights than
| granted to them under fair use doctrines.
|
| I can still open and operate a company called KennyBlanken's
| Debian Consultancy Shop and there is fuck all the Debian project
| can do about it, _because it is descriptive._
| lolc wrote:
| Trademark law is set up so that people do get a Mcdonalds
| burger when it says Mcdonalds on the package. Similarly, people
| expect to get the Rust compiler when the "rustc" package says
| "Rust systems programming language". The name is not used in a
| descriptive sense. The package promises to deliver the goods,
| but they are (slightly) modified goods.
|
| I'm optimistic that a solution will be found. But brushing this
| aside with "it's descriptive" is not helpful.
| im3w1l wrote:
| rust and cargo are a command line interface. That is, a terminal
| api that will be used in countless scripts. Google vs Oracle [0]
| was a fight over whether an api could be copyrighted. Maybe,
| maybe not, but re-implementing it could be considered fair use
| according to the supreme court. Now, apparently some want to test
| whether it can instead be trademarked. I think that's very
| unfortunate. The freedom to make drop-in-replacements is worth
| defending.
|
| This goes way beyond the Iceweasel situation.
|
| [0] https://bit.ly/3RH3zdn (Link goes to,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
| but HN strips the trailing dot).
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Mozilla wants full control over the official Rust binaries, which
| I guess is reasonable. Google also wants full control over Chrome
| binaries, which I guess is reasonable, too.
|
| I think Debian should just move Rust over into "non-free" and
| call it a day. Most people are OK with installing non-free
| software. And those that aren't are probably skilled enough to
| compile their own Rust binaries.
|
| As for having Rust in the kernel, I believe that either needs a
| special permit from Mozilla or there shouldn't be Rust in the
| kernel. It would feel very icky to open the door to using non-
| free products in the kernel, because that will surely invite me-
| toos.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-17 23:02 UTC)