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

2022-07-19 Thread 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")

2022-07-19 Thread 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: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

2022-07-18 Thread 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")

2022-07-18 Thread 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")

2022-07-18 Thread 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")

2022-07-18 Thread 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: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

2022-06-27 Thread 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: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1013920: rust-all: Debian violating Rust Trademark (as serious a situation as "iceweasel")

2022-06-27 Thread 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