On 17/07/2022 18:31, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Luke,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 04:28:10PM +0100, lkcl via Gcc wrote:
with the recent announcement that rust is supported by gcc
There is just a discussion about whether and how to integrate
(portions) of the gccrs frontend into the main gcc repository. Nobody
claims that means the rust programming language is supported by gcc
yet. There is a lot of work to be done to be able to claim that.
has it been taken into consideration that the draconian (non-free-compatible)
requirements of the rust Trademark make the distribution of the gcc
compiler Unlawful?
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920
That looks to me as an overreaching interpretation of how to interpret
a trademark. I notice you are the bug reporter. It would only apply if
a product based on gcc with the gccrs frontend integrated would claim
to be endorsed by the Rust Foundation by using the Rust wordmark. Just
using the word rust doesn't trigger confusion about that. And
trademarks don't apply when using common words to implement an
interface or command line tool for compatibility with a programming
language.
If you are afraid your usage of gcc with the gccrs frontend integrated
does cause confusion around the Rust word mark then I would suggest
contacting the Rust Foundation to discuss how you can remove such
confusion. Probably adding a README explicitly saying "this product
isn't endorsed by and doesn't claim to be endoresed by the Rust
Foundation" will be enough.
Good luck,
Mark
Speaking as someone who is neither a lawyer, nor a GCC developer, nor
even (as yet) a Rust user, it seems to me that step 1 would be to hear
what the Rust Foundation has to say on the matter:
<https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/>
As far as I can tell, if they have been happy with the current gccrs
project, they should in principle be happy with its integration in gcc
mainline. And they are also happy to talk to people, happy to promote
rust, and happy to work with all kinds of free and open source projects.
The key thing they want to avoid would be for GCC to produce a
compiler that is mostly like rust, but different - leading to
fragmentation, incompatibilities, confusion, bugs in user code. /No
one/ wants that.
I am sure that if the Rust Foundation foresaw a big problem here, they'd
already have contacted the gccrs and/or GCC folks - the project is not a
secret.
I would think that the long term aim here is that the gcc implementation
of rust (may I suggest "grust" as a name, rather than "gust"?) be
considered "official" by the Rust Foundation - with links and
information on their website, their logo on the GCC website, and
coordination between GCC and the Rust Foundation on future changes.
That may be ambitious, or far off, but it should be the goal.
In the meantime, as far as I can see it is just a matter of writing
"rust" without capital letters, and a documentation disclaimer that
grust is not (yet) endorsed by the Rust Foundation.
David
