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.
