Why would anyone have to build Rust from scratch?

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

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):

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:

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.

Yes, that's the point.
Thank you!

> 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?

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