Concerns Over Rust Language Trademark Policy Draft

The Rust Trademark Policy is still harmful 🔗

Four days ago, the Rust Foundation released a new draft of the Rust Language Trademark Policy. The previous draft caused division within the community several years ago, prompting its retraction with the aim of creating a new, milder version. Well, that failed. While certain issues were addressed (thank you, we appreciate it!), the new version remains excessively restrictive and, in my opinion, will harm both the Rust community as a whole and compiler and crate developers. While I expect the stricter rules to not be enforced in practice, I don’t want to constantly feel like I’m under threat while contributing to the Rust ecosystem, and this is exactly what it would feel like if this draft is finalized. Below are some of my core objections to the draft.

Concerns have arisen regarding the new draft of the Rust Language Trademark Policy released by the Rust Foundation. Although some issues from the previous draft were addressed, many still find the policy overly restrictive, potentially harming the Rust community and its developers. Key objections include vague language that could threaten individual developers experimenting with forks, limitations on language use that may stifle innovation, and overly strict regulations on educational and community events. Critics argue that the policy prioritizes the Rust Foundation's protection over the language's growth and legacy, urging reconsideration before finalization.

The new draft is seen as excessively restrictive, despite some improvements.
Vague terms could legally jeopardize developers working on forks.
Restrictions on discussing "Rust" and using trademarks may hinder innovation.
Educational events face hurdles due to requirements for explicit permission.
Overall, the policy may prioritize the foundation's interests over the community's.

What are the main concerns about the new Rust Trademark Policy?

The main concerns include its overly restrictive nature, vague language that may threaten developers, and limitations on educational events and discussions surrounding Rust.

How might the policy affect community events?

The policy could require explicit permission for many events, including those that are not affiliated with the Rust Foundation, potentially deterring participation and organization of such events.

Why do critics believe the policy is harmful to the Rust community?

Critics argue that it prioritizes the protection of the Rust Foundation over the language's legacy and growth, which could stifle innovation and community engagement.