1

Topic: What's the problem with including Rust?

Can someone explain this to me?
https://issues.hyperbola.info/index.php … ask_id=736

I agree with the issue raised: it seems that a modified version of Rust or Cargo can be distributed without asking for approval as long as the modified version is not called Rust or Cargo.

So I don't see why André Silva decides at the end of the discussion to blacklist Rust, Cargo, and software that depends on them.

I read the linked discussion on GitHub, and I still don't understand the problem with Rust and Cargo. The comment linked by Silva says

"You are correct that we intended the trademark to apply when
distributing a package or other binary called 'Rust'"

So...don't call it Rust. Seems like there is a miscommunication here.

2 (edited by throgh 2020-08-14 08:49:50)

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

That won't be the solution for "Don't call it Rust!"

In fact the complete licensing behind Rust is the problem and besides that: Not only the naming is included, you have to change the logo. And what to do when versions changed? You have to look after everything to build another version from the ground up: Much work for what outcome? Hyperbola would have an own version of "Rust". This is not only a miscommunication as you can't distribute a modified version of Rust without changing everything - would become more like a fork on this base. This is against the freedom of the users and everything is described here.

Same with GUIX, which is the same reasoning (look here): Building an own version makes just more work, including blacklisting of packages (which would be also part of Rust and Cargo). And with every new version the team would have to do the same again and again. Furthermore the blacklisting is reasonable from my point of view: Rust has serious freedom-flaws and problems, so it can't be part of a libre, free distribution.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

3

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

throgh wrote:

And what to do when versions changed? You have to look after everything to build another version from the ground up: Much work for what outcome?

Why would anyone have to build Rust from scratch?

This is not only a miscommunication as you can't distribute a modified version of Rust without changing everything - would become more like a fork on this base.

Why? Why not just change the name and remove the logo?

everything is described here.

This describes nothing but trademark issues. Don't use the names or the logos and there will be no trademark issues. And the "Solutions" section of that page says the same thing I'm saying: rebrand Rust and Cargo. There's nothing about creating a whole new version of Rust.

4

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

Mesh Malachi wrote:

This describes nothing but trademark issues. Don't use the names or the ogos and there will be no trademark issues. And the "Solutions"
section of that page says the same thing I'm saying: rebrand Rust and Cargo. There's nothing about creating a whole new version of Rust.

hi Mesh Malachi if thats the only issue about rust then i would totaly agree with you i hope throgh will give us more insight about this,
but i presuppose that the team didn't blacklist it without seriously thinking about it

5 (edited by throgh 2020-08-17 20:52:02)

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

Mesh Malachi wrote:

This describes nothing but trademark issues. Don't use the names or the logos and there will be no trademark issues. And the "Solutions" section of that page says the same thing I'm saying: rebrand Rust and Cargo. There's nothing about creating a whole new version of Rust.

That's not the same: Where is the problem with Rust? Let's start with the packagemanager Cargo as there are nonfree packages (mentioned here):

We would also need to maintain a list of nonfree cargo packages to blacklist those for your-freedom.

The normal way for a distribution is to modify a version throughout patches, removing unwanted features of a package and software. This is NOT possible with Rust! Not possible until creating a renamed version. And we are not talking about a little project: That's a complete programming language. So much work to do for a small team. Also mentioned within the Wiki:

A rebranded version of Rust maintained by the GNU Project and FSDG-compliant distros could be the way.

So if somebody feels ready to do this - same for GUIX and the problematic packages like Ungoogled Chromium for example: Feel free to do so. But it is not any kind of solution from my point of view to have more work into Hyperbola building own packages. Rust has freedom flaws and cannot be part of a libre distribution without modifications. You cannot do them without changing the name in every class, every comment and the logo included. So in the end the freedom of users and distributions itself is cut out. Remember also: The team is small and packages need to be look after, especially those like Rust. Perhaps it would help to look into the source code for Rust and Cargo: Just look at them and try to change the name. When you forget about that only at one place Mozilla can start to punish this. Here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/src

The first step: Finding a name. Next one changing everything - much work for minor outcome in the end as we have here a functional browser without Rust. Changing also the logo included, If you want to include Rust into an own installation, feel free. Hyperbola can be changed and hacked without any problem. So my proposal would be: Creating a PKGBUILD-script for people to tryout, your-freedom has to be removed in the first place. But it would be possible: Only having no FSDG-compliant distribution any longer.

The alternative is: For every part of source-code, documentation and anything else:

- comment
- namespaces
- included classnames
- material for logo and copyright itself

And you have to do also a review with Mozilla itself if the new version is fitting everything and can be used. So I ask again: What outcome? This is a omplete own project and cannot be done within the context of a single distribution. Rust is a problem for freedom, also mentioned in the Wiki-article. The price is to have more and more applications being not possible bundled here in the distribution. No problem: If a project is focussing only on a problematic language (same with Java and the OpenJDK) it is not helping freedom, security and privacy.

In the end there are multiple options:

1. Rust being part of Hyperbola? As I've mentioned and described that, also written in the Wiki, everything has to be changed for doing libre modifications afterwards.
2. Rust as PKGBUILD-script here in the forums? Possible, but this is not compliant to be libre in any way. But it is NOT done with changing the name of the script itself (Don't call it Rust!).

The last option is to choose other distributions having Rust included, perhaps GuixSD is an option? You can also start with the mentioned type of "fork" for Rust or with the proof for the PKGBUILD-script. The people behind the distribution made their choice not to include Rust.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

6

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

rust bases are free but the author add some restriction in distributing it.

thus violate the freedom to redistribute as you wish.

7

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

dikasp2 wrote:

rust bases are free but the author add some restriction in distributing it.

thus violate the freedom to redistribute as you wish.

Yes, that's the point.
Thank you!

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

8 (edited by rachad 2020-08-24 01:21:59)

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

thanks for the feedback throgh,

what i have learned as u said the team is too small and busy with everything going on they just cant handle more projects like rust to change and maintain its development after that.
we work with what we have on our hands and its aleady a lot compared to whats out there,
with no compromise towards a better future!

9

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

> Where is the problem with Rust? Let's start with the packagemanager Cargo as there are nonfree packages (mentioned here):

You don't need to include the package manager to include the language.  This is no different than Python.  Hyperbola includes Python but excludes Pip.  Important, free Rust packages should be included in Hyperbola's repositories so that a third party repository with non-free stuff is not needed, just as Hyperbola includes important Python free packages so that PyPi is not needed.

> In fact the complete licensing behind Rust is the problem and besides that: Not only the naming is included, you have to change the logo. And what to do when versions changed?

Basilisk has trademark restrictions like Rust's, and yet Hyperbola has been able to avoid them by maintaining a fork rebranded as Iceweasel-UXP.  Why could this not be done with Rust?

10 (edited by throgh 2020-08-31 07:27:18)

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

chaosmonk wrote:

Basilisk has trademark restrictions like Rust's, and yet Hyperbola has been able to avoid them by maintaining a fork rebranded as Iceweasel-UXP.  Why could this not be done with Rust?

The team is small. But for a complete answer you should contact the people in the IRC. That's only my version of the story behind as you can see the comparison: Most the time Gaming4JC is into the management of the source-code of the UXP-applcations. I didn't see more people besides André for some corrections of dependencies. And therefore you can see it by yourself: Why could this not be done with Rust? Just because this is not needed. There is no browser where Rust is needed and there is no application left. So better to spare a package out having some really big amount of work - coming back to the first quote: Not only the package-manager, also the packages itself to be blacklisted.

If somebody has interest doing a free version Rust, do so. If there are problems Rust missing here: Use another distribution, use GUIX to be included into your personal installation of Hyperbola or do something else. Everything is possible instead to discuss this point over and over here: Free software, freedom to do it as everyone wish. We can also tryout doing some packaging-scripts here in the forums. But Hyperbola is a free distribution and free software, so it is possible to hack and modify. smile

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

11

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

We are not opposed to someone forking Rust. Someone suggested calling it Just (sounds great!), and therefore allowing anyone to redistribute binaries freely with any patches they so desire, without having to come before the Trademark cabal and request permission. However, that is a huge task which needs to be kept in sync with upstream (renaming all instances of "Rust" with "Just" or a similar non-trademarked term)

The ability to build Rust as an unbranded build would resolve this, but this appears to have been rejected upstream so far.
Someone already took the time to open an issue with Rust requesting if trademark restrictions could be lessened, and it was discussed in depth before closing as invalid. The best comment on that thread described even Debian's agreement with Rust as "thin ice". Their response is pretty clear. If you are patching Rust in anyway, be prepared to request permission to redistribute or cease and desist.

On an unrelated note, I'm tired of hearing that Rust is more secure. It's no more secure than any other software if it isn't written properly.
https://medium.com/@shnatsel/how-rusts- … bf0503c3d6

12

Re: What's the problem with including Rust?

I think 2 important points in this discussion have been confused, and leaving aside the cargo issues, because I believe those are easy to understand.
1. Is important to not mix the idea of being against trademark as a whole, with what the hyperbola position is. So then what the rust+mozzila trademark (that is how this specific trademark works) tries to implement is all reference to its "branding" so including in all the codebase, are restricted. Not like python or even better perl, which only prevents copycat/malware projects to pretend to be such organization. So what that means in practice? Is basically a legal weapon mozzila is able to have in its backpocket, because anytime you commit back to the RUSTlang project you are referencing that said "branding" within your contributions, so in legal terms you would need to most of times ask rust team, to avoid possible letigation, to make even a small suggestion back to rust project, and so as others said causing deterioration to the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).
2. Because of such overreaching trademark and the inclusion of rust codebase in a lot of major projects, to fix such issue without infringement of the trademark, while making it possible for the use of rustLANG, is not such small project given every time any change happens to the main rust development such rebrand would have to be check in full for such references or "branding" to be removed, making it a quite time consuming endeavor. So a much more effective solution, for this issue, is for people to start raise awareness for such topic, like hyperbola core team has done, so that one day rustLANG project can change such policy, by first making rust trademark independent so such improvement can happen.