• 3 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
Cake day: February 27th, 2024
  • JustMarkov@lemmy.mltoOpen Source@lemmy.ml•Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred LanguageEnglish
    22·
    1 month ago

    Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it “effectively hampers you from releasing your changes”. It being “not a piece of cake” doesn’t cut it.

    The easiest example is that you’ll have to adapt all Rust-dependant applications to the Rust fork, 'cause it is a programming language.

    But still, don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to say that Rust is a bad language or something. I’m just trying to point out on the problem, that was adressed to Rust Foundation before.

    Good luck to you too.

  • JustMarkov@lemmy.mltoOpen Source@lemmy.ml•Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred LanguageEnglish
    420·
    1 month ago

    If I wanna modify and redistribute their language and use Rust or Cargo in the name I should not have to ask for an explicit permission, this is the freedom 3 problem.

    This is also why I gave Python and Perl examples. I can modify both Python and Perl, calling them the same way, but I can not do the same thing with Rust.

    I’ll leave their trademarks comparsion under the spoiler for those, who interested.

    Spoiler

    Rust:

    Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language, compiler, or the Cargo package manager with modifications other than those permitted above and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written permission from the Rust Foundation.

    And Python:

    Use of the word “Python” when redistributing the Python programming language as part of a freely distributed application – Allowed. If the standard version of the Python programming language is modified, this should be clearly indicated. For commercial distributions, contact the PSF for permission if your use is not covered by the nominative use rules described in the section “Uses that Never Require Approval” above.

    Let’s also look at Perl:

    People sometimes ask if TPF’s use of an onion in the Perl logo means that independent projects that use or relate to Perl need TPF’s permission to use an onion of their own design in connection with their project. ​ The answer is “not necessarily” as long as no likelihood of confusion is created. One of the fundamental legal bases for trademark protection is to make sure that the public can depend on a mark as an accurate indicator of a particular source or relationship, and one way of defining trademark infringement is to say that the infringing mark creates a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion is determined based not only on making a comparison of the marks side-by-side, but also on making a comparison of the contexts in which they are actually used. Thus, it’s easy to imagine independent onions that would be fine, and independent onions that might not be.