That is incredibly common for trademarked logos, including open source ones. Some do allow changes under certain conditions, but Rust also has Ferris for those purposes
@cody orr umm... It's how new languages work, at first nobody uses them, and then they grow. It's quite stupid to say that nobody usesxa language when it was just released
@@AntoshaPushkin actually, rust foundation been too low on money - corpies haven't had any interest to invest decent penny in this project, so miserable almshouse is about to die.
@@MikePerreman it doesn't help that everyone who manages to get Arch set up effectively is so traumatised that their standard response to anybody who asks questions is "Fuck You, peasant. Wanna be in Archon? Take the pain, bitch." (FWIW: Arch, i3, tmux and [n]vim... and Python, R, MATLAB and PostgreSQUEAL. I'm *everybody* 's worst nightmare)
@@MikePerreman This is more like the D&D licence chaos from a few months back. This happens when the (competent) lawyer has no idea how communities work and assume it works the same as with businesses.
We should create a fork and call it "Crust". The logo can be a piece of toast. It will be blazingly fast and memory safest. Only rule is, all packages must have the name crust in it.
if you forked the r-word language, you could continue to merge changes from the r-word compiler into your own. It wouldn't be difficult to maintain, the r-word foundation can't stop you from continuously forking the compiler.
And wind up in court for trademark infringement which is backed by federal laws of the United States and abroad as they hold 27 trademarks which spans globally. 🤷♀🤦♂
What if you live in a country that has no ties with le Murican gobermen? Will Uncle Sam send his warriors to murder me, just because I decided to troll the Rust foundation?
@@TwstedTVThat assumes the trademark is actually valid. "Rust" is a programming language, its not some product sold by a company, the courts could easily say "Rust Foundation" is trademarked but "Rust" itself is not, also rust is a very common word making it even more difficult to prove it as a viable trademark.
Time for the community to take controll. Rust and cargo are open source. A few tiny tweaks for the language and they can use it as something not called rust.
Eh, the community isn't like what you think it is. This channel is quite deceptive in the portrayal. Vast majority of Rust enthusiasts in big channels are highly toxic and pedantic bureaucratic just like the wording in the foundation's thing.
@@valizeth4073 Trademarks are not just a name, they're a name in a specific field, so while it's fun to think "what about the Rust game..." in reality it's a moot point.
It's sad to see this kind of behavior. I'm also expecting the Linux foundation to pull all commits and future plans of including Rust in the kernel as it could become a legal nightmare for them.
Linux is a really mature project that has been dealing with corporate types for years. They'll manage. They have good lawyers. And, they'll comply with the license.
this feels more political to me, they dont want anyone to be able to use their name so that people who have commited wrong think are unable to use it. i wouldnt usually think this of this kind of action from a corporation, but they are non profit so the profit motive is gone, and they made several references to specific political things in their terms like the guns for example, or the exception for using a colorized rust logo as long as its for pride month or blm.
@@derpapottamus That also crossed my mind. I find it disturbing that a programming language foundation is expressing political opinions. Just why would they be concerned about that. Its a fucking programming language, keep your opinions for elsewhere.
@@thekwoka4707 The moment someone starts with legal gibberish in what's supposed to be a short tutorial I click x. It's a waste of time, energy, air, braincells etc. I didn't even know there was a "rust team" and I don't think anyone who does know would mistake a rando tutorial maker for a member if they don't explicitly say they are. And even if someone thinks a tutorial maker is part of "the rust team" whatever that's even supposed to mean. Who cares? Get that legal bullshit out of my face. Let me program without that BS. Let me ask and answer questions on fora without that word policing. By the way, many of those points will not stand in court. Rust is descriptive, it's a name, the logo, when transformed, is considered transformative work. These documents should be illegal to even publish, because they are non-enforceable and designed to shut people up lest they be dragged along in legal trips that drain every penny out of you until you either give up or come out in the end with the only winner being the lawyers.
Yes, I remember, vaguely. “As a result of such structural unaccountability, we have been unable to enforce the Rust Code of Conduct to the standards the community expects of us and to the standards we hold ourselves to” said one of the outgoing contributors.
No. The moderation team quit over a change in the CoC which -- correct me if I'm wrong -- was rectified after which the moderation team was reinstated.
@@DrunkenUFOPilot Yea, I'm not too thrilled with so called "codes of conduct". They seem to do more harm than good to me. If it can't be summed up as "don't be an ass", then it's probably wrong, and if it can be summed up thusly, do you really need all kinds of bureaucracy to enforce it? If you are an ass, people are going to ignore you without the need for rules and bureaucracy. They can realize you are an ass without needing some tribunal to tell them that. I don't know, maybe I have too much faith in humanity.
@@phillipsusi1791 my guy just explained libertarianism in a paragraph or less. "Just dont be an ass or people wont work with you, why the fuck do we need bureaucracy?"
I feel like this would be really hard to hold up in court. Also I don't understand how the foundation and core lang team remain this far out of touch with the community. It reminds me of the async-await debacle, where the core lang team had a very strong idea of how they wanted to do it, did some polling, it was not the most popular solution by far, and then they went ahead with it anyway. That's aside from the problems with Pin structures used to implement async that introduced a whole slew of memory safety bugs. **The language itself does so many things right, but jeez sometimes they really do some asinine stuff.*
The `.async` syntax makes sense to me (I wish they'd done the same for `&` and `*` to make it possible to always read left-to-right), but I think `Future` (should have separate methods for starting, polling, and registering a callback, and the callback design should be a language feature) and `Pin`/`Unpin` (should have dedicated language support, including special syntax for manual RVO) are badly designed, I guess out of laziness.
Many companies will be too nervous to allow their developers to build their IP in Rust. It won't matter if a company legally can or can't. The sentiment around "licenses" simply has to make them nervous and companies will take the safe route, and say "no". Once the adoption starts decline, it'll remain in the gutters forever. And this is definitely going to be removed from the Kernel.
This does not effect the programing side of Rust(cargo, rustc, etc) Other languages have trademarks including C++. If a company is scared of the word license then they are out of luck. Companies need to deal with licenses if they know they exist or not. But my hope is that Rust will relax there license more.
Well, I have been thinking about this a lot over the past 24 hours. Places I have worked for certainly would pause to consider that. Plus, if they make a change now, what about later? Let's see what the foundation does in response.
Especially if adoption comes through startups (new projects). There is already more to worry about than can be managed by a small team. A restrictive license on a new language is not a top priority. Especially if developers of more established languages are also cheaper.
The Rust Foundation not only just blew their trust with the Rust community at large, they also blew their chances with the Linux community as well. Linus won't let Rust touch the kernel now if there's any sniff of a possible future lawsuit. What a wasted opportunity :(
@@ThePrimeagen SCO vs Linux would have aged Linus. I doubt he'd be willing to do it all over again for the lulz en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes
To be completely honest... I am glad this happened. All of this unrestricted fanaticism towards Rust smelled awful to me since the first time I saw it, so when the push for incorporating Rust into Linux started I was like "Oh God, please, no". I guess the fanaticism finally got to the heads of those running the Rust Foundation. Oh well, I don't need any ideology in my tools. I'll just wait for a fork if I ever get interested into their methods of memory management.
Yep. “Power Trip” was my thought too. Especially when the document started skirting the possibility of selectively enforcing rules based of political beliefs.
I think they should trademark "the rust foundation" and slap that on every official stuff. That way you could easily mark official rust stuff and have a hard and locked down trademark without bothering everyone else 🤷
This has to be the single dumbest decision they could make for the long term adoption of the language. It starts here and who knows where it will end, certainly doesnt give confidence to a company that they can use the language without having possible legal troubles in the future.
@@thekwoka4707 person b lightly punches person a Is a allowed to counteract by giving him a light punch back? Yes Is a allowed to counteract by pulling out a gun and shooting him in the head? No.
bro it's their loss really. People have used C forever. Rust were trying to make people learn it and use it. Now people will just keep using C instead. Devs don't care. The Rust community is orders of magnitude smaller than the Linux and the C ones. It's more probable people will just deprecate the Linux kernel in Rust and move along, if anything.
Rust has introduced several great ideas into the industry. However, if the foundation were to make poor decisions, we can simply transition to another language that addresses the current issues with Rust while also improving upon them. There is certainly room for improvement in many areas.
Some C++ evangelist/consultants, when asked about Rust for new long-term projects, makes the argument that it isn't a "tried and tested" language and time will tell. But now the argument goes "LOL".
As a c++ evangelist this change breaks my heart. I don't see the lack of adoption of rust as anything short of a travesty. Rust has objectively made huge sweeping improvements in the area of software engineering. Though I may not like the syntax of rust, anyone who doesn't see what rust could bring is either blond or a fool. Imagine people being happy that a law gets passed and you can no longer use a table saw. Anyone happy about an extremely useful tool no longer usable is too stupid to use a saw in the first place.
@@IamusTheFox As a C++ developer who witnessed the Rust fanboys dunking on developers of every other programming language, I couldn't be happier about all this. Rust had some interesting ideas sure, but if you know what you're doing, it isn't much trouble to get (close to) similar results using C++. Rust will probably die (hopefully) but its ideas will live on and eventually be re-implemented into other low level languages.
@@dipanjanghosal1662 I don't find the language that appealing, and I do tend to find the community over all extremely toxic. That doesn't mean that the language dying is a good thing. I would also like to say I've met many who are really wonderful people.
I mean the CoC was a controversial choice in my opinion, but it's really just the same shit that every community doesn't want you to do. It literally just tells people not to bully people on their community, which is basically a rule everywhere. I guess since they also included LGBTQ+ people, people are angry about it.
@@ryanleemartin7758 Not really. I assume that by the "core politics", you mean the prevention of bullying people, even if they have identities that are not your own (because that's the part that everyone seems to find so controversial). Enforcing simple rules does not demonstrate authoritarian behavior, and that rule is only meant to provide some protection to people who are often targeted in other communities. People see that protection as "shoving queerness down people's throats", because they want to make people's identities a political issue so that they can pretend to be the victim of their own hate. Not being allowed to intentionally target and harass people regardless of their identities isn't authoritarian at all, and it's truthfully harmful to think that way.
@@skeleton-bullfrog You assume incorrectly. The tactic you are using now is actually closer to what I mean. 1. You've made an assumption about what I must be thinking which conveniently justifies your sense of righteousness. 2. You've determined that the group must be protected from my wrong think (that you've just made up) 3. You've essentially labeled me as "truthfully harmful" as a way to discredit and dismiss. Scale this tactic up a little and you've got a pretty good example of what I mean by "authoritarian like behavior"
@@ryanleemartin7758 So I'm curious about what you meant by "authoritarian like behavior", because I would like to know whether or not my assumption was justified. Also, I stated at the beginning of my comment that I would be making an assumption, which should be enough to clarify that I simply want to state my opinion on a certain matter which is commonly debated when discussing the code of conduct, and not to take the moral high-ground as you implied. If I did happen to make an incorrect assumption, then I am glad that we agree and it is pointless to continue this argument, as it should not have continued in the first place. But I will make another assumption which is that I was actually correct with my first one, which is conceivable once you think about how you are considering my point that minority groups deserve to be protected, to be authoritarian, which is exactly what I was explaining to be untrue in the first place. I am confused as to what you meant from me assuming incorrectly, as you've never actually stated what you meant, just reworded what I was saying. And I would like to point out that you've made at least two assumptions about me in your comment, which was literally meant to criticize me for making a single assumption, which is hypocritical to say the least. You could have made even more, but I can hardly make out what your second point was meant to mean due to the tedious grammar and lack of proof-reading. Either way, whether we were at an agreement from the first place, or you are just mindlessly and bitterly rambling, this "keyboard battle" has no reason to continue, and I am looking forward to ignoring your future responses.
I know this will likely get shot down considering the backlash it has received, but the fact that there are people in the Rust foundation who thinks this is a good direction is very concerning. Its not the proposal that matters, its the idea and I can bet it will keep coming back in one form or the other until there people with an agenda in the foundation.
Exactly, once the idea first appears then you know there's a cancer at the company. And cancers grow and grow unless you blast them with radiation. So unless people get fired for this nonsense, then the cancer will continue to exist and I won't use rust anymore.
@@dipanjanghosal1662 Ah, yes. Because real languages compile to real byte code whereas rust compiles to fake byte code because it is bad and not real. Because that is how programming languages work.
Funny enough: Oracle lets you use the word Java; Java was not open source while Rust is open source from the beginning. This will definitely hurt the language in the long run. The open source community needs companies to adopt their product and give back in turn to keep it going, and this is not going to help. Worse yet, Rust compiler is fully open source licensed and soon in the foreseeable future people will fork something like LibreR to replace it...
Yeah, if they're gonna get all political about "personal accessories" that I can carry, I don't think I can trust this group as far as I can spit. I'm certainly not going to devote thousands of hours of my life into producing something within that ecosystem just to have the rug pulled out from under me whenever they get a stick up their rear end about something. I'll stick to C++. The whole memory safety thing is overblown. As long as you use RAII and smart pointers it's fine. The trait system was kind of nice though, ngl.
@@DFPercush I hope one day they will release and approve Uniform Function Call Syntax in C++. Coupling it with concepts will be like traits in general.
The Gitea project did something similar with their trademark. The community quickly forked it into Forgejo and continued contributing there. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Rust community did the same thing.
You made me curious, so I asked ChatGPT: Cuprite , Hematite (another iron oxide!), Chromite , Rutile , Bauxite - Damn, many of these are pretty cool names! (even if longer) - Hematite sounds pretty good, although maybe invokes too many associations with blood ... - hema is not a bad shortened name with 4chars ... - Baux doesn't sound too bad either ...
That’s actually pretty good news. I can finally sue the laws of chemistry for constantly ruining my metal fence instead of spending my weekends repainting it every so often.
Wow. I just finished setting up rust on my PC's and started flirting with the idea of going through a couple of books about it. Some people from the foundation are taking themselves way too seriously. The only thing they missed is not being able to put that you are a Rust Developer on your CV without paying the certification badge...
The feedback I submitted was 5 paragraphs about what rust means to me, and what I wouldn't feel safe doing anymore under the proposed changes. By the end I was kind of ranty but I think I did a good job curbing my rant intensity to below my usual deranged level, and prefaced the idea of forking the language with how sad it would make me so it clearly wasn't an angry threat. perhaps they'll filter out all responses containing the word fork or something, and never know about my passion, despite my slightly-more-than-half-assed efforts to be palatable.
Wow. This is nuts. Like, now, even if they don't go through with this, they will still be "those guys" that thought this might be a good idea and tried to do it. How can you trust people like that? I've been using Rust for my newest projects to get familiar with it, but after knowing this, I really don't know if I want that any more.
The website design thing cracks me up cause it's literally just 4 sections and some buttons. It's like the first website anybody makes, and they have the audacity to call it a unique visual style. I'm okay with having people state they're not a part of the Rust foundation.. but everything else just sounds goofy as shit and feels like some suit got in there to "whip things into shape". The logo bit and not allowing any Rust related events to have firefarms is the funniest thing I've seen in a while.
It's really unclear to me what they're trying to achieve with all of this, but painfully clear that it has badly undermined community trust. The absolute last thing any programming language community needs is the chilling effects of legal threats for using the language name in your domain name or using the word "Cargo" in an unapproved way. I really hope the Rust Foundation takes the backlash seriously and scraps this initiative before they scare everybody away.
Linux will send a spicy 3-paragraph email to everybody who even thinks about Rust anymore. Thank god Linux still has a clear mind and is not shy to cut out the tumors in the kernel.
Seems weird. I guess core Linux would still be able to use the word Rust because I think they are non-profit. But like Redhat literally could not have a webpage that listed all the programming languages used in the making of Linux/Redhat???
It’s crazy how I looked up and respected the r-word team for making the language and everything around it and this is just… so different from everything I’ve seen and heard of it. Why, just why
I've been encountering these insane lawyers lately doing contracts. I don't know if it's a new trend or what, or maybe a large group of corporate lawyers were laid off somewhere, or perhaps it's just a coincidence, as I'm sure we all remember the Sky trademark fiasco.
This has been an ongoing trend in organizations for a while. Every year their terms of services get more restrictive, and more protective of the company. The goal is to make sure that the organization is fully protected from all and any lawsuits that it can legally protect itself from so they are not financially liable for anything, and can never lose.
This breaks my heart. I am not a big fan of the syntax. Rust has been one of the most important developments in software in decades. It kills me that they did this. Even if they walk it back tomorrow, the damage for corporate adoption will be felt for years. This is coming from a c++ guy.
As a non-native English speaker, I don't understand this : can they just trademark the name of the reddish-brown substance formed when iron-containing compounds corrode in the presence of oxygen and water? (don't understand the same thing with Apple)
No, they can’t. Any reasonable court of intellectual property law would prevent that. What they’re trying to do is impossible. If they take measures to enforce these rules, they would be killing Rust’s great potential.
Rust is not trademarked for all uses, but for uses related to the programming language. This is very common for trademarks, the problem in this case is how overreaching this is.
Trademarks are restricted and limited by nature. You don't technically even have to register trademarks (it is advisable though) you just have to continue existing and using the mark and more importantly defending it in your limited industry space from misuse. The rust foundation did that and one step too far is the problem here. An example is you can certainly trademark the color of rust for a rust remover product and programming language but it is unlikely either company could sue the other for using the rust color in their respective products because no user or consumer would be confused between a metal corrision removal product and a programming language. Logos and styles of website would get slightly more complex as you could cause confusion regardless depending on how exactly you copy the other. Many countries have trademark opposition that also evaluate these kinds of problems on a case by case basis to see if it would actually be confusing or not.
Apple own their trademark in the field of computers. Apple Music used to be a completely different company in the field of music publishing that predated Apple Computers, hence for a long time, Apple Computers’ music store was called iTunes.
It is politically motivated. By people who want to 'create a better world' where everyone is happy, but only their particular kind of happy. If you're non English speaking the the chances are you have first hand experience with were that leads to.
As a C++ Dev, who never made a single search on Rust, I don't know how UA-cam suggested this, and even if I had 0.000000163% interest in use Rust, I'd need to spend 76% of the time just trying to figure out what I am and am not allowed to do. Nah, thanks. I'd rather spend that time looking up and studying those intrinsics to get that last microsecond performance😌
Ruat is going full Java. From a groundbreaking, revolutionary language with many enthusiastic fans to a corporate-friendly, mediocre, stalled development tool. sorry to hear that
Hail Fauchi, oh great big pharma shill!!!! This and the guns (which I don’t have nor care for) was the thing that did it for me! Well the already annoyed me with the thing that they’d create logos with pride and BLM and the other “current thing”. But okay… but this really showed me they are an activist foundation and not an apolitical programming language foundation! And I’d be just as appalled if it was more in my political arena! Politics shouldn’t have a place in opensource projects.
@@mennovanlavieren3885 I'm not antivax, I just mention that pandemic like today is just a special case, and in normal days like 2018, a patent rule like this is unreasonable. Besides, I think that a contract should not handle criminal or other law-breaking stuff. Law breaking stuff should be punished because it's law breaking, not because it infringes copyright/trademark.
Yeah, that's definitely how you make a language more accessible! By instilling fear of legal consequences in anyone trying to support the project... What will happen to all the unofficial books about Rust? Or about crates like rustyline?
Thanks. I was looking to set aside time to use rust to write a backend conversion of optimised technical routines currently in C, but F them. Node or Go will be just fine, saving me heaps of time.
Workaround: Create your own Rust icon that is very close to the original and use German (wich is Rost) They can not control the video content, there you can go nuts! Hope that they will not turn Rust into another OpenOffice and force developer to create a more free version of it. But if that happen, the new name of the Rust fork will be Stainless 🙂
They prohibit it. It's a standard for all trademarks. "Trademark law does not allow your use of names or trademarks that are too similar to ours. You therefore may not use an obvious variation of any of our marks or any phonetic equivalent, foreign language equivalent, takeoff, or abbreviation for a similar or compatible product or service. Like ROST, ROSTY, CARGO NET etc."
@@captainbrainless .. you can use the word Cargo, if it not directly points (or gives an clear suggestion), that you are from the Rust Foundation. It's like printing Apple or Nike logo on non apple computers or non nike shoes ^^ I have a T-shirt with Rust logo 😅I earned it in 2020 on code camp, now it's not allowed for me to wear it, because it's just a logo on a white material, that can suggest i'm from RF, but i'm not, i just used the RS language with Tokio-rs on a competiton. I think the policy looks very restrictive, but it is not. Even the computer dealers, had to get the approval, to add a small sticker to the computers they sell, with "Linux Ubuntu compatible".
I'm actually surprised they did regulate the brand of keyboard you use while you type rust, or the way you sit on toilets while you are on a convention talking about rust Maybe they should enforce the people to talk about rust only with a ball gag on. I don't know... can they actually being sued for outreached trademarking ?
@@kamu38 The Rust community as a whole is very left wing which is why I try to steer clear of their communities. They say they're "inclusive" but what that really means is inclusion by exclusion of opposition.
@@lane1313 I don't think it has anything to do with Rust per se, it's just Rust is just a part of big tech which is left wing. It's so god damn boring, non stop virtue signalling etc. If it's any consolation I think this era will be coming to a standstill soon enough.
Origin. Rust is named after the resulting phenomenon of the oxidation of iron. The word 'rust' finds its etymological origins in the Proto-Germanic word rusta, which translates to "redness." The word is closely related to the term "ruddy," which also refers to a reddish coloring in an object.
@@SolomonUcko Which originates from Adam. Which also means "man." Meaning only those descended from Adam are of the kind of man. Meaning only those descended from Adam are mankind. No, contrary to common biblical teachings, not all humans are descended from Adam. The Adamites are a subset of humanity. Which in modern terms is described as Indo-European-Caucasian or proto-Indo-European.
Hmmm, are you sure it's not just an April Fool's prank? Or maybe the Rust Foundation is using a different calendar than the rest of us. Perhaps they've invented a new "Rustic" calendar system that we're not privy to.
This begs the question, who are they trying to hurt with this? Certainly not the big corps. If Microsoft launched a new product, say "Office Embedded", they aren't gonna say, "Office Embedded, blazingly fast, powered by Rust." They are hurting the teachers, the media outlets, and the small companies trying to adopt it. Which then begs the question, why?
2:49 This is all pretty standard stuff for a trademark. (Like, 80% of this document is just rephrasing trademark law.) They have to continually enforce a trademark in order to have the privilege of enforcing it when they really need to. FWIW, they could not prevent a paint company (for example) from using the word rust in a domain name or trademark --+ although they could certainly try.
For my first Rust project, I was going to write a terminal screen reader. I'm currently using one, Fenrir, that's written in Python. It's great, but I wanted to build something that would work using a single binary, rather than having to deal with Python dependencies, and I was going to eventually add scripting support using something like Lua. I think the language is great, but the fact that they'd even consider a proposal like this scares me off. I get trying to protect your IP, but this is extremely heavy handed, and I have no idea how it even got this far. The hoops you have to jump through just to use their name are insane, and the whole thing about not being able to host events where carrying fire arms is not allowed, demonstrates that the Rust foundation is completely unconcerned with a huge segment of people, in the US at least, and they don't care to be. Even if a programming language's foundation did enforce political positions that I agreed with, the fact that they are getting political at all would make me question the whisdom of using such a language for my projects, as the language itself isn't going to be a neutral tool that I can use to accomplish the goals of my project, and the use of that language implies, even in a minor way, my support of such positions. I hope this proposal is inevitably shot down, but I'd still wonder whether something similar or worse might become an issue in the future.
That political activist position was also what really did it for me! Even if they’d push libertarian ideas, which I am, I’d have the same position! You’re a foundation for a programming language not an activist foundation! They are trying to be an activist+programming language foundation. I don’t want any politics in my opensource tools! I get enough of that shit already!
@@ThisIsTheBestAnime This isn't water or something. I can just not use it and use something else. Why bother using it when this is their agenda? The vote doesn't matter.
@@ShinDMitsuki The vote does matter. They are asking for feedback on how the community wants to handle the trademark. Rust is not the only language with a trademark. You may find the language you are moving to already has some of the issues rust has in draft. It is easier to participate and fix it now then to move to a new language find they have a similar issue and try and fix it. If you are just using the language then nothing has changed for you.
@@proesus7446 You can still use it. Nobody ever said you had to advertise what you used to build your project. We never advertised what we built ours in, in fact we do the utmost to try and make the user not notice what we built it in.
@@proesus7446 professional development rarely brags about language logos in names and urls. Those few projects will write a mail to Rust people and have an agreement with them.
I think the problem is that most people associate the word 'Rust' and the logo with the language not the foundation but the foundation wants them to refer to them. If they did all that but with the words 'The Rust Foundation' and had a logo specifically for the foundation (that was not on language documentation) then they would have a good case. As it is they are trying to behave like Sun/Oracle over Java. You can't own a language and if you try to you will harm the launguage.
I laughed at the Gophers because they had to deal with the telemetry thing, saying that my favourite PL would never do something like that. Now, oh well...
I learned more about intermediate/advanced C++ from learning about ferrous oxide than anywhere else. Man, I'm glad C++ still exists (and now, incredibly depressed).
Yep, eff this lang and eff the foundation. I'll try zig sometime but time tested and decades old langs are good for me here if this is how nulangs are going to be coming out.
Honestly, as someone that is still fairly new to pursuing rust. This doesn't make me very confident that this is a good idea. This feels like a legal team that companies are scared of. Like how my current company forbids us use of oracle products because they don't potentially want to get sued
I have an idea: How about we ask the creators behind the game Rust to open a donation portal so they can hire lawyers who will threaten Rust foundation with cease and desist threats, if they decide to trademark Rust lang like this?
I don't see a way they could back out from this or recover their dignity. A formerly friendly organization threatening the user base with legal action over ever-day normal practices.... Even if they apologize for taking it too far...I cannot trust that they are safe to depend on. It doesn't matter, I'm keeping away. I can no longer call myself an r-word-acean.
@@MikePerreman I think they will be all right too. I just don't trust that they won't propose something similarly crazy in the future. In practice, I don't need to think about the law when I'm using Arch, anymore than if I were to use Ubuntu.
@@MikePerreman So, if I make a video about Arch, I should mention upfront that I'm not part of the Arch Foundation? That certainly happens in every video about Arch on UA-cam ever.
I sure as hell don't want anything to do with Rust after seeing this. I had considered Rust a few times, and had finally gotten to the point there were literally books in my card waiting for a couple more being released later this month so I could get combined shipping, and this comes out. The books (whose titles would have to be changed if not for the fact that these fools' "trademark policy" extends far beyond what trademark law permits) have been removed from my cart. No thanks, Rust is a minefield of infantile political posturing and lawfare waiting to happen, and I don't have time for it. I also am now of the opinion that ALL RUST **MUST** be ripped out of the Linux kernel before it and their stupidity further infests anything else. Whatever I support, whatever I oppose, these things are immaterial. Because overriding all of them is that I oppose someone attempting to coercively dictate what things others must support or oppose. That's how discrimination is created in the first place, not how you successfully end it.
As an engineer, that's all I needed to hear to drop this language. I 100% agree with companies having IP, but I cannot and will not walk around with punishment and litigation burdening me. Farewell Rust.
I hope there's enough push back to change this. I don't see why they can't adopt similar rules to what other programming languages use to protect their IP.
Funny thing is there seems to be a lot of software being "marketed" as "written/rewritten in Rust", it was becoming a cliche. I guess this policy will certainly change that.
As someone just getting into software development I was considering choosing Ru$t as my real first language to dive into. These rules do not inspire me to contribute to coding for an overlord that wont even let me speak their name like freaking Voldemort.
This video would have been orders of magnitude more useful if he had compared these terms to the terms of some other common, comparable languages/projects. For example, to the best of my knowledge-- and I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked with lawyers in this arena before-- no company is ever going to allow people alter or distort their logo. Heck, at the two major software developers I've worked for, you couldn't even customize the logo for your own team, to make like team t-shirts or anything. I also suspect that the bits about needing a code of conduct is probably becoming more and more common (though I'm just guessing, I don't claim to know for sure), partly due to the rapid increase in the use of Zoom. At the company I'm currently at, we had a case where our outreach department helped user groups for our product out in minor ways, and one of those was using our professional business license of zoom to host meetings. Well, some user started screen sharing graphic pornography, talking in sexually explicit terms, pasting links to porn websites in the chat, etc. Our lawyers had to do a non-trivial amount of research, and have outside counsel validate their conclusions, about what our potential liability was, since we had implicitly 'blessed' the user group by providing the zoom call. Now, some of the stuff does sound way out there, like only being able to use their copyrighted marks for a conference if the main topic of the conference is Rust-- that just seems crazy, if I'm hosting a Security conference and I want a half-day Rust track, I should be able to properly publicize that. But the point is, while almost everything he called out seems over-the-top, I actually don't know how much of it is abnormal, vs. how much is true for lots of other software or projects, but no one ever bothers to read the terms, and the terms are only ever enforced on the rare occasion that the trademark owner believes actual brand damage is being done. As an analogy, if you just read the possible side effects of any given medication, and you don't have any baseline or context, you're going to conclude that it's hugely dangerous and that your doctor was insane or actively malicious for prescribing it. It's only once you read through the side effects for 10 other medications that you realize it's mostly just legal cover-your-ass boilerplate. I don't know how much of that is going on with the Rust Foundation, vs. how much of what he covers in this video is legitimately out of whack.
Guess we should all switch to zig or go back to C. I was already a bit concerned with the code of conduct for a programming language. This confirms my fears. It only gets worse.
@@flarebear5346 the contributor covenant at least is subject to some interpretation. There are more politically charged CoCs like that weird geek feminism one.
Hey, Like and Subscribe. I didn't say it, so don't make me, do your part ass holes
Hey!!
This is kind of extreme for a fungus.
read it in his voice!!!
Make sure to censor R*** in the title of the video, in case they decide to sue you.
@@NostraDavid2😂
So they also implement ownership model on rust logo as well. Borrow checker: "you cannot borrow logo as mutable"
haha lol the lawyer is a borrow checker
@@AnnasVirtual The Legal Borrow Checker or TLBC for short 😅😅😅
Yep, The "You know what" logo just became immutable by default 😆
That is incredibly common for trademarked logos, including open source ones. Some do allow changes under certain conditions, but Rust also has Ferris for those purposes
It should be stored as Cow
Rust just went full Oracle.
Never go full Oracle.
Thinking just the same
as another commenter says, at least oracle lets you use the word java in tutorials and stuff
@@michaelthornes yeah, this just sounds like buying a license to be able to compile code or some other shit, insane
They went full SJW
You read my mind
Thank you, Rust Foundation. I see people programming in C and C++ till 2083
Wait... why would people stop programming in 2083?
@@seanwoods647 maybe we will be destroyed ... but i think he talks about usage of c
@@seanwoods647 nuclear silo will have a buffer overflow and accidentally kill us all
Reject Rust, return to assembler.
At least by that time employers will be able to hire junior devs with 100 years of C++ experience.
Rust is so fast it even made the next year's april fools joke in advance
It's so fast it wants to speedrun being irrelevant in a couple of years
@cody orr umm... It's how new languages work, at first nobody uses them, and then they grow. It's quite stupid to say that nobody usesxa language when it was just released
@@AntoshaPushkin actually, rust foundation been too low on money - corpies haven't had any interest to invest decent penny in this project, so miserable almshouse is about to die.
@cody orr Not a rust fan but I gotta point out that Firefox is written in Rust
@cody orr I haven't looked into it in detail, but if what you are saying is true, then Mozilla's marketing team should get a raise for all the Rustaceans© they created through their grift. I think it was Firefox 60 that they began promoting as being fully written in Rust© from the ground up.
This is what happens when you hire trademark/IP lawyers who do not understand open source or software and who are not reigned in by the client at all.
IT is probably worse than that. Political infiltration.
@@MikePerreman it doesn't help that everyone who manages to get Arch set up effectively is so traumatised that their standard response to anybody who asks questions is
"Fuck You, peasant. Wanna be in Archon? Take the pain, bitch."
(FWIW: Arch, i3, tmux and [n]vim... and Python, R, MATLAB and PostgreSQUEAL. I'm *everybody* 's worst nightmare)
@@MikePerremanwhat an insufferable existence
@@MikePerreman This is more like the D&D licence chaos from a few months back. This happens when the (competent) lawyer has no idea how communities work and assume it works the same as with businesses.
Mozilla's entire org is dedicated to OSS. They know exactly what they're doing. You, otoh, are just catching up. Wax on, wax off!
We should create a fork and call it "Crust". The logo can be a piece of toast. It will be blazingly fast and memory safest. Only rule is, all packages must have the name crust in it.
Hey, and you already have a legit name for the compiler!
crust lang and crusty , we can keep snail 🐌 instead of 🦀
This feels like the foundation going to extreme lengths to solve problems I'm not confident existed in the first place.
monetization?
You don't have to be confident at all to know this is a non-issue and completely unnecessary.
There are bigger fish to fry. What are they thinking?!
The problem they are trying solve is orange man bad and history paints communism in a really bad light.
They seem to be SJW's as well
if you forked the r-word language, you could continue to merge changes from the r-word compiler into your own. It wouldn't be difficult to maintain, the r-word foundation can't stop you from continuously forking the compiler.
r-word foundation🤣
Name the fork "Nust"
@@HentaiNat n-word foundation
Ruts
Rost
This sounds like a fun challenge - make a website that violates as many of these guidelines as possible
And wind up in court for trademark infringement which is backed by federal laws of the United States and abroad as they hold 27 trademarks which spans globally. 🤷♀🤦♂
Guidelines are guidelines, not law.
What if you live in a country that has no ties with le Murican gobermen? Will Uncle Sam send his warriors to murder me, just because I decided to troll the Rust foundation?
That's too easy.
@@TwstedTVThat assumes the trademark is actually valid. "Rust" is a programming language, its not some product sold by a company, the courts could easily say "Rust Foundation" is trademarked but "Rust" itself is not, also rust is a very common word making it even more difficult to prove it as a viable trademark.
Community : "Let's make this language fun, easy and big!"
The Foundation: "We don't do that here"
Time for the community to take controll. Rust and cargo are open source. A few tiny tweaks for the language and they can use it as something not called rust.
cant have meme
Eh, the community isn't like what you think it is. This channel is quite deceptive in the portrayal. Vast majority of Rust enthusiasts in big channels are highly toxic and pedantic bureaucratic just like the wording in the foundation's thing.
The future is forked
@@nickmills8476 😅
The R Foundation's lawyers are gonna have a field day when they learn the Rust Foundation is infringing their trademark.
The Rust game developers is gonna have a field day
I really hope not.
@@valizeth4073 There is big chance that game developers would win court.
@@valizeth4073 Trademarks are not just a name, they're a name in a specific field, so while it's fun to think "what about the Rust game..." in reality it's a moot point.
@@asdfasdfasdf1218 I think a game would fall under software according to this policy
It's sad to see this kind of behavior. I'm also expecting the Linux foundation to pull all commits and future plans of including Rust in the kernel as it could become a legal nightmare for them.
thats probably the reason they did this in the first place
I was wondering the same, just adding obstacles to the adoption of Rust
@@ZephrymWOWwhy? How can "look my language is used in the Linux kernel" be a bad thing?
Linux is a really mature project that has been dealing with corporate types for years. They'll manage. They have good lawyers. And, they'll comply with the license.
@@creativecraving Seems to me like the easiest way to comply is to not use the language in any way in the first place.
This smells like someone let a lawyer into the building
Yeah, they should have the programmers write the licenses.
Rust Foundation's platinum members include AWS, Meta, Facebook, and Google. It's reasonable to assume all of them had at least one lawyer involved.
this feels more political to me, they dont want anyone to be able to use their name so that people who have commited wrong think are unable to use it. i wouldnt usually think this of this kind of action from a corporation, but they are non profit so the profit motive is gone, and they made several references to specific political things in their terms like the guns for example, or the exception for using a colorized rust logo as long as its for pride month or blm.
@@derpapottamus That also crossed my mind. I find it disturbing that a programming language foundation is expressing political opinions. Just why would they be concerned about that. Its a fucking programming language, keep your opinions for elsewhere.
And a stupid one at that.
Oracle are known for being pretty anal about legal stuff, but they do allow you to write a Java course and put Java in the name.
This does too. It just wants you to clarify that you're not part of the Rust team.
That's not bad. That's good.
@@thekwoka4707 rust shill dont care
@@tabletuser123 *fingers in ears* LALALA I DON'T LISTEN TO THE TRUTH I JUST LIKE HATING THINGS BECAUSE INTERNET MAN TOLD ME TO. Grow the fuck up kid.
@@thekwoka4707 The moment someone starts with legal gibberish in what's supposed to be a short tutorial I click x. It's a waste of time, energy, air, braincells etc.
I didn't even know there was a "rust team" and I don't think anyone who does know would mistake a rando tutorial maker for a member if they don't explicitly say they are. And even if someone thinks a tutorial maker is part of "the rust team" whatever that's even supposed to mean. Who cares?
Get that legal bullshit out of my face. Let me program without that BS. Let me ask and answer questions on fora without that word policing.
By the way, many of those points will not stand in court. Rust is descriptive, it's a name, the logo, when transformed, is considered transformative work. These documents should be illegal to even publish, because they are non-enforceable and designed to shut people up lest they be dragged along in legal trips that drain every penny out of you until you either give up or come out in the end with the only winner being the lawyers.
@@thekwoka4707 "that's not bad, that's good" some people will really defend whatever the rust foundation does won't they?
So a Rust User Group without a Code of Conduct is not allowed? I'm out of this kindergarden ...
Must force far left politics some how. Oh, that's not the purpose of a software language or its user group? You must be rycist.
What a great way to convince engineers to adopt your language.
Lmao back to Go I guess.
More like abandon it.
@@yogxoth1959 That's the joke. It's sarcasm.
I hope this will be the final nail in its coffin.
@@CheeseOfMasters Or Zig. Or maybe take this as an opportunity for fucking god sake improve C standard library.
Didn't a bunch of Rust maintainers quit couple of years ago because the foundation was high on their own farts?
Yes, I remember, vaguely. “As a result of such structural unaccountability, we have been unable to enforce the Rust Code of Conduct to the standards the community expects of us and to the standards we hold ourselves to” said one of the outgoing contributors.
No. The moderation team quit over a change in the CoC which -- correct me if I'm wrong -- was rectified after which the moderation team was reinstated.
CoC is there for control... OWNERSHIP
@@DrunkenUFOPilot Yea, I'm not too thrilled with so called "codes of conduct". They seem to do more harm than good to me. If it can't be summed up as "don't be an ass", then it's probably wrong, and if it can be summed up thusly, do you really need all kinds of bureaucracy to enforce it? If you are an ass, people are going to ignore you without the need for rules and bureaucracy. They can realize you are an ass without needing some tribunal to tell them that. I don't know, maybe I have too much faith in humanity.
@@phillipsusi1791 my guy just explained libertarianism in a paragraph or less. "Just dont be an ass or people wont work with you, why the fuck do we need bureaucracy?"
I feel like this would be really hard to hold up in court.
Also I don't understand how the foundation and core lang team remain this far out of touch with the community. It reminds me of the async-await debacle, where the core lang team had a very strong idea of how they wanted to do it, did some polling, it was not the most popular solution by far, and then they went ahead with it anyway. That's aside from the problems with Pin structures used to implement async that introduced a whole slew of memory safety bugs. **The language itself does so many things right, but jeez sometimes they really do some asinine stuff.*
The `.async` syntax makes sense to me (I wish they'd done the same for `&` and `*` to make it possible to always read left-to-right), but I think `Future` (should have separate methods for starting, polling, and registering a callback, and the callback design should be a language feature) and `Pin`/`Unpin` (should have dedicated language support, including special syntax for manual RVO) are badly designed, I guess out of laziness.
they're doing everything to become a footnote instead of the C successor.
I feel like its going to create a distance between the community and the Rust team, sad because the community is a big part of why I love Rust
This 100%
I love rust because of the open community. Now they are going insane. And somehow threw even firearms in the mix.
Rust foundation != Rust project/community
This is actually good, since the Rust community is more like a cult. I don’t like it. I like more professional community, like in C++
@@maelstrom254
@@maelstrom254 😂😂 good one
Many companies will be too nervous to allow their developers to build their IP in Rust. It won't matter if a company legally can or can't. The sentiment around "licenses" simply has to make them nervous and companies will take the safe route, and say "no". Once the adoption starts decline, it'll remain in the gutters forever. And this is definitely going to be removed from the Kernel.
This does not effect the programing side of Rust(cargo, rustc, etc)
Other languages have trademarks including C++. If a company is scared of the word license then they are out of luck. Companies need to deal with licenses if they know they exist or not.
But my hope is that Rust will relax there license more.
Yep.
Well, I have been thinking about this a lot over the past 24 hours. Places I have worked for certainly would pause to consider that. Plus, if they make a change now, what about later? Let's see what the foundation does in response.
Especially if adoption comes through startups (new projects). There is already more to worry about than can be managed by a small team. A restrictive license on a new language is not a top priority. Especially if developers of more established languages are also cheaper.
Yeah I think you've fundamentally misunderstood. Using Rust in your project is okay. Using "Rust" in your marketing, now without a license, is not.
The Rust Foundation not only just blew their trust with the Rust community at large, they also blew their chances with the Linux community as well. Linus won't let Rust touch the kernel now if there's any sniff of a possible future lawsuit. What a wasted opportunity :(
i am ackshually super curious about this
@@ThePrimeagen SCO vs Linux would have aged Linus. I doubt he'd be willing to do it all over again for the lulz en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes
@@alfiedotwtf SCO ? The Xenix guys ? Well that's a name I haven't heard in a long time, to quote Obiwan Kenobi.
To be completely honest... I am glad this happened. All of this unrestricted fanaticism towards Rust smelled awful to me since the first time I saw it, so when the push for incorporating Rust into Linux started I was like "Oh God, please, no".
I guess the fanaticism finally got to the heads of those running the Rust Foundation. Oh well, I don't need any ideology in my tools. I'll just wait for a fork if I ever get interested into their methods of memory management.
@@TheDragShot You don't like ideology in your tools? I guess you've never heard of GNU then 🤦♂
I honestly have no idea what they are trying to do... This entire document reads like it was written by someone high on a power trip.
To me it reads very typical.
Node.js jQuery and WebPack have stricter policies.
@@MikePerreman The Rust Foundation was at risk of, er, loosing their trademark? Smooth.
@@MikePerreman the rust foundation should hire you on their team man.
@@MikePerreman So the R*** F****** would lose ownership if they didn't write this garbage? Sure bro.
Yep. “Power Trip” was my thought too. Especially when the document started skirting the possibility of selectively enforcing rules based of political beliefs.
I think they should trademark "the rust foundation" and slap that on every official stuff. That way you could easily mark official rust stuff and have a hard and locked down trademark without bothering everyone else 🤷
this ^^^
That would be the common sense attitude. I doubt there is common sense on their side though...
I'm just upset that my rust removal device now can't use rust in its name even tho its my product. just kidding I'm a joke
@@dallassegno But a good one, rest assured.
this is proper namespacing IRL.
Ah yes, suddenly having an ISO committee doesn't seem as bad anymore.
This has to be the single dumbest decision they could make for the long term adoption of the language. It starts here and who knows where it will end, certainly doesnt give confidence to a company that they can use the language without having possible legal troubles in the future.
I was seriously about to learn it next. Not anymore!
Oh it's started way before this
@@nonconsensualopinion you won't find any language that people use that doesn't have similar policy.
@@nonconsensualopinion you weren't really that serious if a UA-cam video took you back from that decision lol
@@thekwoka4707 person b lightly punches person a
Is a allowed to counteract by giving him a light punch back? Yes
Is a allowed to counteract by pulling out a gun and shooting him in the head? No.
Someone went on a power trip writing that document
No joke
Yeah, to me, the whole thing has an air of _“My product has become successful. Maybe I can leverage this to control people’s behavior.”_
I hope The RS community will be as vocal as the Linux one. No way this passes along. Let's not forget there's always the big fork bomb.
bro it's their loss really. People have used C forever. Rust were trying to make people learn it and use it. Now people will just keep using C instead. Devs don't care. The Rust community is orders of magnitude smaller than the Linux and the C ones.
It's more probable people will just deprecate the Linux kernel in Rust and move along, if anything.
I was considering dabbling in Rust but the foundation is off-putting haha. Time to go back to C++
for a language with such an awesome community, the r*** foundation sure is great at making terrible choices...
This will have been drafted by a lawyer, maybe the one Hasbro fired after the OGL license fiasco.
Like the way you avoid future law suites!😀
Cough cough mozilla cough
They probably saw camel-case in a Rust tutorial and had to take the nuclear option.
Rust has introduced several great ideas into the industry. However, if the foundation were to make poor decisions, we can simply transition to another language that addresses the current issues with Rust while also improving upon them. There is certainly room for improvement in many areas.
exapmles please
Some C++ evangelist/consultants, when asked about Rust for new long-term projects, makes the argument that it isn't a "tried and tested" language and time will tell. But now the argument goes "LOL".
As a c++ evangelist this change breaks my heart. I don't see the lack of adoption of rust as anything short of a travesty.
Rust has objectively made huge sweeping improvements in the area of software engineering. Though I may not like the syntax of rust, anyone who doesn't see what rust could bring is either blond or a fool.
Imagine people being happy that a law gets passed and you can no longer use a table saw. Anyone happy about an extremely useful tool no longer usable is too stupid to use a saw in the first place.
@@IamusTheFox Then make your own language, Fox Lang; I've made my own language called husky, that has borrow checkers but easier to write.
@@IamusTheFox They're not that useful. Skilsaw beats it for anything but sawmill sized operations, in my mind
@@IamusTheFox As a C++ developer who witnessed the Rust fanboys dunking on developers of every other programming language, I couldn't be happier about all this. Rust had some interesting ideas sure, but if you know what you're doing, it isn't much trouble to get (close to) similar results using C++. Rust will probably die (hopefully) but its ideas will live on and eventually be re-implemented into other low level languages.
@@dipanjanghosal1662 I don't find the language that appealing, and I do tend to find the community over all extremely toxic. That doesn't mean that the language dying is a good thing.
I would also like to say I've met many who are really wonderful people.
New Linux kernel patch notes:
- r*st support removed
This is hilariously insane. I sorta saw this coming when they shoved the CoC down everyone's throat.
I mean the CoC was a controversial choice in my opinion, but it's really just the same shit that every community doesn't want you to do. It literally just tells people not to bully people on their community, which is basically a rule everywhere. I guess since they also included LGBTQ+ people, people are angry about it.
yeah, authoritarian like behavior is certainly in line with the core politics of Rust.
@@ryanleemartin7758 Not really. I assume that by the "core politics", you mean the prevention of bullying people, even if they have identities that are not your own (because that's the part that everyone seems to find so controversial). Enforcing simple rules does not demonstrate authoritarian behavior, and that rule is only meant to provide some protection to people who are often targeted in other communities. People see that protection as "shoving queerness down people's throats", because they want to make people's identities a political issue so that they can pretend to be the victim of their own hate. Not being allowed to intentionally target and harass people regardless of their identities isn't authoritarian at all, and it's truthfully harmful to think that way.
@@skeleton-bullfrog You assume incorrectly.
The tactic you are using now is actually closer to what I mean.
1. You've made an assumption about what I must be thinking which conveniently justifies your sense of righteousness.
2. You've determined that the group must be protected from my wrong think (that you've just made up)
3. You've essentially labeled me as "truthfully harmful" as a way to discredit and dismiss.
Scale this tactic up a little and you've got a pretty good example of what I mean by "authoritarian like behavior"
@@ryanleemartin7758 So I'm curious about what you meant by "authoritarian like behavior", because I would like to know whether or not my assumption was justified. Also, I stated at the beginning of my comment that I would be making an assumption, which should be enough to clarify that I simply want to state my opinion on a certain matter which is commonly debated when discussing the code of conduct, and not to take the moral high-ground as you implied. If I did happen to make an incorrect assumption, then I am glad that we agree and it is pointless to continue this argument, as it should not have continued in the first place.
But I will make another assumption which is that I was actually correct with my first one, which is conceivable once you think about how you are considering my point that minority groups deserve to be protected, to be authoritarian, which is exactly what I was explaining to be untrue in the first place. I am confused as to what you meant from me assuming incorrectly, as you've never actually stated what you meant, just reworded what I was saying.
And I would like to point out that you've made at least two assumptions about me in your comment, which was literally meant to criticize me for making a single assumption, which is hypocritical to say the least. You could have made even more, but I can hardly make out what your second point was meant to mean due to the tedious grammar and lack of proof-reading.
Either way, whether we were at an agreement from the first place, or you are just mindlessly and bitterly rambling, this "keyboard battle" has no reason to continue, and I am looking forward to ignoring your future responses.
I know this will likely get shot down considering the backlash it has received, but the fact that there are people in the Rust foundation who thinks this is a good direction is very concerning.
Its not the proposal that matters, its the idea and I can bet it will keep coming back in one form or the other until there people with an agenda in the foundation.
^this
Exactly, once the idea first appears then you know there's a cancer at the company. And cancers grow and grow unless you blast them with radiation. So unless people get fired for this nonsense, then the cancer will continue to exist and I won't use rust anymore.
i hope linux foundation realizes this as well and abandons rust integration NOW
So stop using it. Use the real languages like C/C++. Even the Linux kernel got infected with Rust. Hopefully, they'll remove that code now.
@@dipanjanghosal1662 Ah, yes. Because real languages compile to real byte code whereas rust compiles to fake byte code because it is bad and not real.
Because that is how programming languages work.
Funny enough: Oracle lets you use the word Java; Java was not open source while Rust is open source from the beginning. This will definitely hurt the language in the long run. The open source community needs companies to adopt their product and give back in turn to keep it going, and this is not going to help. Worse yet, Rust compiler is fully open source licensed and soon in the foreseeable future people will fork something like LibreR to replace it...
And yet we have OpenJDK which is contributed to by Oracle employees.
Rust is so safe that it forgot to fix the errors of its own foundation
I suddenly lost all interest in learning and propagating the Rust language anymore….
Me too😔
Yeah, if they're gonna get all political about "personal accessories" that I can carry, I don't think I can trust this group as far as I can spit. I'm certainly not going to devote thousands of hours of my life into producing something within that ecosystem just to have the rug pulled out from under me whenever they get a stick up their rear end about something. I'll stick to C++. The whole memory safety thing is overblown. As long as you use RAII and smart pointers it's fine. The trait system was kind of nice though, ngl.
This. This right here.
It could be perfect, but doing this will destroy Rust completely!
@@DFPercush I hope one day they will release and approve Uniform Function Call Syntax in C++. Coupling it with concepts will be like traits in general.
i wanted to learn rust until now
The Gitea project did something similar with their trademark. The community quickly forked it into Forgejo and continued contributing there. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Rust community did the same thing.
this
my thought exactly. - Are there any other named metal oxides? I like the word oxidation...
@@Verrisin Patina is a thin layer of oxide that forms on copper, bras and bronze.
@@scurvofpcp hmm... Thanks for answer! ... not sure it sounds great as a name, but cool to know more are named
You made me curious, so I asked ChatGPT: Cuprite , Hematite (another iron oxide!), Chromite , Rutile , Bauxite
- Damn, many of these are pretty cool names! (even if longer)
- Hematite sounds pretty good, although maybe invokes too many associations with blood ... - hema is not a bad shortened name with 4chars ...
- Baux doesn't sound too bad either ...
That’s actually pretty good news. I can finally sue the laws of chemistry for constantly ruining my metal fence instead of spending my weekends repainting it every so often.
Wow. I just finished setting up rust on my PC's and started flirting with the idea of going through a couple of books about it. Some people from the foundation are taking themselves way too seriously. The only thing they missed is not being able to put that you are a Rust Developer on your CV without paying the certification badge...
Delete, please
@@leonardomangano6861 DELETE THIS 😂
DO NOT GIVE THEM IDEAS
DONT GIVE THEM IDEAS
Bro… rm -rf this shit . These demons don’t need more ideas
The feedback I submitted was 5 paragraphs about what rust means to me, and what I wouldn't feel safe doing anymore under the proposed changes. By the end I was kind of ranty but I think I did a good job curbing my rant intensity to below my usual deranged level, and prefaced the idea of forking the language with how sad it would make me so it clearly wasn't an angry threat.
perhaps they'll filter out all responses containing the word fork or something, and never know about my passion, despite my slightly-more-than-half-assed efforts to be palatable.
I just asked if it was made by a mentally ill obese communist high on opioids and alcohol
Thank you for taking the time to speak up on our behalf.
Wow. This is nuts. Like, now, even if they don't go through with this, they will still be "those guys" that thought this might be a good idea and tried to do it. How can you trust people like that?
I've been using Rust for my newest projects to get familiar with it, but after knowing this, I really don't know if I want that any more.
What prompted this, and what problem are they trying to solve here? This genuinely feels like nintendo levels of copyright infringement.
It smells like some folks want to solve political diversity.
Ironically, this has nothing to do with copyright.
The website design thing cracks me up cause it's literally just 4 sections and some buttons. It's like the first website anybody makes, and they have the audacity to call it a unique visual style.
I'm okay with having people state they're not a part of the Rust foundation.. but everything else just sounds goofy as shit and feels like some suit got in there to "whip things into shape". The logo bit and not allowing any Rust related events to have firefarms is the funniest thing I've seen in a while.
It's really unclear to me what they're trying to achieve with all of this, but painfully clear that it has badly undermined community trust. The absolute last thing any programming language community needs is the chilling effects of legal threats for using the language name in your domain name or using the word "Cargo" in an unapproved way. I really hope the Rust Foundation takes the backlash seriously and scraps this initiative before they scare everybody away.
Wonder how this is going to impact rust consideration among linux kernel devs?
Linux will send a spicy 3-paragraph email to everybody who even thinks about Rust anymore. Thank god Linux still has a clear mind and is not shy to cut out the tumors in the kernel.
There is a high chance that linus could just remove rest from linux
issue is there are a lot of work already done, especlly for asahi linux in rust
@@timh6088 *Linus
Seems weird. I guess core Linux would still be able to use the word Rust because I think they are non-profit. But like Redhat literally could not have a webpage that listed all the programming languages used in the making of Linux/Redhat???
The changes have no effect on those who use rust in their products. It's only about those who make content about Rust, videos, merchendise and so on.
They are completely crazy, or maybe they want to kill their own product.
Sure seems like they want to kill their own product.
You've already proven why they are doing this by the fact you are calling Rust a product. Rust isn't a product. It should always be for the community.
Rust is not the rust foundation's product.
3. Borrow checker got to their head
that's been evident for quite a while now. It's what happens when selfish sheeple become in charge
It’s crazy how I looked up and respected the r-word team for making the language and everything around it and this is just… so different from everything I’ve seen and heard of it. Why, just why
Holy sh*t, I thought this was a bad april fools joke, but it is 10 days late
The community should just call it Crust instead.
The name has 'rust' in it? Isn't that a violation of a certain clause somehwere? 😇😇
@@lexNwimue just call it Rekt
@@lexNwimue
R*st -> R-word -> Hard R
can I call it Fart?
@@lexNwimue Maybe not because there is no uppercase R. How could they put restriction on a usual word "rust" ?
So Rust is now officially the Voldamort of the programming languages.
I've been encountering these insane lawyers lately doing contracts. I don't know if it's a new trend or what, or maybe a large group of corporate lawyers were laid off somewhere, or perhaps it's just a coincidence, as I'm sure we all remember the Sky trademark fiasco.
This has been an ongoing trend in organizations for a while. Every year their terms of services get more restrictive, and more protective of the company. The goal is to make sure that the organization is fully protected from all and any lawsuits that it can legally protect itself from so they are not financially liable for anything, and can never lose.
Rust Foundation saw the Golang telemetry controversy and said, "Wait, hold my beer, I got one better!"
Is the telemetry proposal buried btw?
@bunny_the_lifeguard9789 6ft deep
Lmao exact point
This breaks my heart. I am not a big fan of the syntax. Rust has been one of the most important developments in software in decades. It kills me that they did this. Even if they walk it back tomorrow, the damage for corporate adoption will be felt for years.
This is coming from a c++ guy.
As a non-native English speaker, I don't understand this : can they just trademark the name of the reddish-brown substance formed when iron-containing compounds corrode in the presence of oxygen and water?
(don't understand the same thing with Apple)
No, they can’t. Any reasonable court of intellectual property law would prevent that. What they’re trying to do is impossible. If they take measures to enforce these rules, they would be killing Rust’s great potential.
Rust is not trademarked for all uses, but for uses related to the programming language. This is very common for trademarks, the problem in this case is how overreaching this is.
Trademarks are restricted and limited by nature. You don't technically even have to register trademarks (it is advisable though) you just have to continue existing and using the mark and more importantly defending it in your limited industry space from misuse. The rust foundation did that and one step too far is the problem here.
An example is you can certainly trademark the color of rust for a rust remover product and programming language but it is unlikely either company could sue the other for using the rust color in their respective products because no user or consumer would be confused between a metal corrision removal product and a programming language. Logos and styles of website would get slightly more complex as you could cause confusion regardless depending on how exactly you copy the other. Many countries have trademark opposition that also evaluate these kinds of problems on a case by case basis to see if it would actually be confusing or not.
Apple own their trademark in the field of computers. Apple Music used to be a completely different company in the field of music publishing that predated Apple Computers, hence for a long time, Apple Computers’ music store was called iTunes.
It is politically motivated. By people who want to 'create a better world' where everyone is happy, but only their particular kind of happy. If you're non English speaking the the chances are you have first hand experience with were that leads to.
Some people are blaming the lawyers, but they more or less "implement the idea" and tell you what's "possible". People should blame the "management".
Karen, get here.
As a C++ Dev, who never made a single search on Rust, I don't know how UA-cam suggested this, and even if I had 0.000000163% interest in use Rust, I'd need to spend 76% of the time just trying to figure out what I am and am not allowed to do. Nah, thanks.
I'd rather spend that time looking up and studying those intrinsics to get that last microsecond performance😌
The Rust Foundation be like:
Rust ❌
R-Word ✅
This is absolutely nuts and way too restrictive, I am very disappointed in the Rust Foundation and hope they don’t go through with this insanity.
The entire foundation has attracted various forms of insanity. In fact some kind of mental illness is pretty much a requirement at this point
Ruat is going full Java. From a groundbreaking, revolutionary language with many enthusiastic fans to a corporate-friendly, mediocre, stalled development tool. sorry to hear that
"comply with the local health regulations"
Rust just assumed that the pandemic will go on forevef.
But safety....
It is clear where all this is coming from. And thereby how dangerous it is.
Hail Fauchi, oh great big pharma shill!!!!
This and the guns (which I don’t have nor care for) was the thing that did it for me! Well the already annoyed me with the thing that they’d create logos with pride and BLM and the other “current thing”.
But okay… but this really showed me they are an activist foundation and not an apolitical programming language foundation!
And I’d be just as appalled if it was more in my political arena! Politics shouldn’t have a place in opensource projects.
@@mennovanlavieren3885 linkse kliek! Brrrrrr!!!!
@@mennovanlavieren3885 I'm not antivax, I just mention that pandemic like today is just a special case, and in normal days like 2018, a patent rule like this is unreasonable.
Besides, I think that a contract should not handle criminal or other law-breaking stuff. Law breaking stuff should be punished because it's law breaking, not because it infringes copyright/trademark.
@@CallousCoder Did they du a ukraine version of the logo? xD
Yeah, that's definitely how you make a language more accessible! By instilling fear of legal consequences in anyone trying to support the project...
What will happen to all the unofficial books about Rust? Or about crates like rustyline?
Probably nothing, but with these kind of policies, you can't be sure of anything... all it takes is one dude in a bad mood in the rust foundation
Hätte nicht erwartet dass jemand mit nem BBM Avatar hier zu finden ist
Thanks. I was looking to set aside time to use rust to write a backend conversion of optimised technical routines currently in C, but F them. Node or Go will be just fine, saving me heaps of time.
Workaround:
Create your own Rust icon that is very close to the original and use German (wich is Rost)
They can not control the video content, there you can go nuts!
Hope that they will not turn Rust into another OpenOffice and force developer to create a more free version of it.
But if that happen, the new name of the Rust fork will be Stainless 🙂
They stated in the disclaimer that this does also apply to words similar to Rust, e.g. Rost. 🙂
They prohibit it. It's a standard for all trademarks. "Trademark law does not allow your use of names or trademarks that are too similar to ours. You therefore may not use an obvious variation of any of our marks or any phonetic equivalent, foreign language equivalent, takeoff, or abbreviation for a similar or compatible product or service. Like ROST, ROSTY, CARGO NET etc."
@@Micha-tp4pu , what about Lufthansa Cargo? 😃
Call it "Nuts" and let them suck ours for thinking this is acceptable
@@captainbrainless .. you can use the word Cargo, if it not directly points (or gives an clear suggestion), that you are from the Rust Foundation. It's like printing Apple or Nike logo on non apple computers or non nike shoes ^^ I have a T-shirt with Rust logo 😅I earned it in 2020 on code camp, now it's not allowed for me to wear it, because it's just a logo on a white material, that can suggest i'm from RF, but i'm not, i just used the RS language with Tokio-rs on a competiton. I think the policy looks very restrictive, but it is not. Even the computer dealers, had to get the approval, to add a small sticker to the computers they sell, with "Linux Ubuntu compatible".
"prohibit the carrying of firearms"
I wonder why the Rust foundation thinks they're able to regulate (at least in the US) the 2nd amendment.
How can that part and the "health regulations part" mean anything but if you're not a good leftie, take a hike?
I'm actually surprised they did regulate the brand of keyboard you use while you type rust, or the way you sit on toilets while you are on a convention talking about rust
Maybe they should enforce the people to talk about rust only with a ball gag on.
I don't know... can they actually being sued for outreached trademarking ?
@@kamu38 The Rust community as a whole is very left wing which is why I try to steer clear of their communities. They say they're "inclusive" but what that really means is inclusion by exclusion of opposition.
@@lane1313 I don't think it has anything to do with Rust per se, it's just Rust is just a part of big tech which is left wing. It's so god damn boring, non stop virtue signalling etc. If it's any consolation I think this era will be coming to a standstill soon enough.
Origin. Rust is named after the resulting phenomenon of the oxidation of iron. The word 'rust' finds its etymological origins in the Proto-Germanic word rusta, which translates to "redness." The word is closely related to the term "ruddy," which also refers to a reddish coloring in an object.
According to my interpretation of Wiktionary, last the common ancestor of "Rust" and "red" is proto-Indo-European *h₁rewdʰ-.
@@SolomonUcko Which originates from Adam. Which also means "man." Meaning only those descended from Adam are of the kind of man. Meaning only those descended from Adam are mankind. No, contrary to common biblical teachings, not all humans are descended from Adam. The Adamites are a subset of humanity. Which in modern terms is described as Indo-European-Caucasian or proto-Indo-European.
All gamers that play Rust (the video game) going to have to go to court too ??
Yes 😂, we all meeting at court on Sunday 😂
No, it’s a trademark, so it has to be in a context where it’s related to the programming language
Hmmm, are you sure it's not just an April Fool's prank? Or maybe the Rust Foundation is using a different calendar than the rest of us. Perhaps they've invented a new "Rustic" calendar system that we're not privy to.
That’s what I though too. But April 7th is a little late, not?
I had to check the date as well 'cause damn, does it look like a April 's fools prank.
@@EspectroMascarado April 7th?! Kinda late not?! March 31st April 1st okay... I did actually wonder this myself too.
The community should agree on a synonym for Rust, like "Iron Oxid", along with Logo and everything!
This begs the question, who are they trying to hurt with this?
Certainly not the big corps. If Microsoft launched a new product, say "Office Embedded", they aren't gonna say, "Office Embedded, blazingly fast, powered by Rust."
They are hurting the teachers, the media outlets, and the small companies trying to adopt it. Which then begs the question, why?
Time to fork Rust, I hope the GCC frontend is evolving well.
Lol
Wake up bro
Rust is dead
Time to learn Zig
@@an-eios7125
Yeah, changing from a mature language to a 0.10.0 language, sounds very smart.
@@diadetediotedio6918 have people ever heard about C++
@@diadetediotedio6918 what do you mean? im slow jaja
@@jeffreyrockstudio8759
This is just going back to shit anyway.
2:49 This is all pretty standard stuff for a trademark. (Like, 80% of this document is just rephrasing trademark law.)
They have to continually enforce a trademark in order to have the privilege of enforcing it when they really need to. FWIW, they could not prevent a paint company (for example) from using the word rust in a domain name or trademark --+ although they could certainly try.
You are brave to use the name R*st in the youtube title.
It can be considered criticism which falls under free speech
For my first Rust project, I was going to write a terminal screen reader. I'm currently using one, Fenrir, that's written in Python. It's great, but I wanted to build something that would work using a single binary, rather than having to deal with Python dependencies, and I was going to eventually add scripting support using something like Lua. I think the language is great, but the fact that they'd even consider a proposal like this scares me off. I get trying to protect your IP, but this is extremely heavy handed, and I have no idea how it even got this far. The hoops you have to jump through just to use their name are insane, and the whole thing about not being able to host events where carrying fire arms is not allowed, demonstrates that the Rust foundation is completely unconcerned with a huge segment of people, in the US at least, and they don't care to be. Even if a programming language's foundation did enforce political positions that I agreed with, the fact that they are getting political at all would make me question the whisdom of using such a language for my projects, as the language itself isn't going to be a neutral tool that I can use to accomplish the goals of my project, and the use of that language implies, even in a minor way, my support of such positions.
I hope this proposal is inevitably shot down, but I'd still wonder whether something similar or worse might become an issue in the future.
You can influence whether this proposal is shot down by responding to the google forms form linked in the twitter post.
That political activist position was also what really did it for me!
Even if they’d push libertarian ideas, which I am, I’d have the same position! You’re a foundation for a programming language not an activist foundation! They are trying to be an activist+programming language foundation. I don’t want any politics in my opensource tools! I get enough of that shit already!
@@ThisIsTheBestAnime This isn't water or something. I can just not use it and use something else. Why bother using it when this is their agenda? The vote doesn't matter.
@@ShinDMitsuki The vote does matter. They are asking for feedback on how the community wants to handle the trademark.
Rust is not the only language with a trademark. You may find the language you are moving to already has some of the issues rust has in draft.
It is easier to participate and fix it now then to move to a new language find they have a similar issue and try and fix it.
If you are just using the language then nothing has changed for you.
@@dynfoxx the trajectory may have changed though, if it has indeed become an activist organization.
"may not carry firearms" haha good luck enforcing that rust
Fuck it
They can't sue us all
😅
Good luck using it outside of hobby projects. This move makes it an ex Mozilla project that killed their own chances in the business/enterprise market
@@proesus7446 You can still use it. Nobody ever said you had to advertise what you used to build your project. We never advertised what we built ours in, in fact we do the utmost to try and make the user not notice what we built it in.
@@proesus7446 professional development rarely brags about language logos in names and urls. Those few projects will write a mail to Rust people and have an agreement with them.
I think the problem is that most people associate the word 'Rust' and the logo with the language not the foundation but the foundation wants them to refer to them. If they did all that but with the words 'The Rust Foundation' and had a logo specifically for the foundation (that was not on language documentation) then they would have a good case. As it is they are trying to behave like Sun/Oracle over Java. You can't own a language and if you try to you will harm the launguage.
Now I weirdly wanna buy a domain for a company that specializes in removing an oxidation layer off steel or iron parts.
I laughed at the Gophers because they had to deal with the telemetry thing, saying that my favourite PL would never do something like that.
Now, oh well...
you can never trust a company or any congregation of people that says they care
I learned more about intermediate/advanced C++ from learning about ferrous oxide than anywhere else. Man, I'm glad C++ still exists (and now, incredibly depressed).
I love C++.
LMAO, Ferrous oxide
I'm learning Rust before C/C++, can you elaborate on how it helped since I'm keen to eventually move into C++?
Ferrous Oxide > [redacted]
Welcome to the programming language formally known as Rust.
Suddenly i don't want to learn and write my next project idea in rust, i was just about to try it out but for now i'll stick with C
Same here
Yep, eff this lang and eff the foundation. I'll try zig sometime but time tested and decades old langs are good for me here if this is how nulangs are going to be coming out.
Honestly, as someone that is still fairly new to pursuing rust. This doesn't make me very confident that this is a good idea. This feels like a legal team that companies are scared of. Like how my current company forbids us use of oracle products because they don't potentially want to get sued
Yeah I think basically Rust as a language just died. I'm not gonna make anything in it now.
For no reason other than spite, we need a Rust conference for gun enthusiasts in a rural area of a constitutional-carry state 😂 go ahead and stop us!
I have an idea: How about we ask the creators behind the game Rust to open a donation portal so they can hire lawyers who will threaten Rust foundation with cease and desist threats, if they decide to trademark Rust lang like this?
If this continues, it will sadly be a huge blow to rust, even if the language itself is such a masterpiece.
I would just stop programming with it, completely.
It's not worth to use a language that threatens you legally every time you mention it
I don't see a way they could back out from this or recover their dignity.
A formerly friendly organization threatening the user base with legal action over ever-day normal practices....
Even if they apologize for taking it too far...I cannot trust that they are safe to depend on.
It doesn't matter, I'm keeping away.
I can no longer call myself an r-word-acean.
@@MikePerreman I think they will be all right too. I just don't trust that they won't propose something similarly crazy in the future.
In practice, I don't need to think about the law when I'm using Arch, anymore than if I were to use Ubuntu.
@@MikePerreman I don't think anyone wants as many people using Rust as there are people using Arch! That would be a huge blow to the language.
@@MikePerreman So, if I make a video about Arch, I should mention upfront that I'm not part of the Arch Foundation?
That certainly happens in every video about Arch on UA-cam ever.
I sure as hell don't want anything to do with Rust after seeing this. I had considered Rust a few times, and had finally gotten to the point there were literally books in my card waiting for a couple more being released later this month so I could get combined shipping, and this comes out. The books (whose titles would have to be changed if not for the fact that these fools' "trademark policy" extends far beyond what trademark law permits) have been removed from my cart. No thanks, Rust is a minefield of infantile political posturing and lawfare waiting to happen, and I don't have time for it.
I also am now of the opinion that ALL RUST **MUST** be ripped out of the Linux kernel before it and their stupidity further infests anything else.
Whatever I support, whatever I oppose, these things are immaterial. Because overriding all of them is that I oppose someone attempting to coercively dictate what things others must support or oppose. That's how discrimination is created in the first place, not how you successfully end it.
I am so upset by this because I was planning to blog about my adventures in learning rust as a typescript developer.
Are you living in the US? If so, maybe, create your blog outside of US jurisdiction
It literally won't change your blog at all.
You can do that and this doesn't impact anything you do.
@@thekwoka4707 Not if he were to accept donations
Remember this is just a proposal, not anything final
@@aperson4051 not even then, if he does the blog without the protected visual elements.
Alright, time to learn C
It was a nice journey
But i'm sick of land
Lets run to the sand
And see
out on the sea
the language of C
chat gpt? lmao
*out on the C
*and C
@@stdprocedure no?
As an engineer, that's all I needed to hear to drop this language. I 100% agree with companies having IP, but I cannot and will not walk around with punishment and litigation burdening me. Farewell Rust.
I hope there's enough push back to change this. I don't see why they can't adopt similar rules to what other programming languages use to protect their IP.
They can just go "LALALALALA" and ignore what everybody says, pushing this ... crusty mess on people.
Is this one even different from other programming languages? And this is not about IP.
rust team is just scared of memers puting bad rep on it xD fucking cowardice
@@espertalhao041 Not if everyone sells gay Rust stickers
Funny thing is there seems to be a lot of software being "marketed" as "written/rewritten in Rust", it was becoming a cliche. I guess this policy will certainly change that.
maybe the only good outcome of that proposal
This is the best thing that could've happen. We won't have to see annoying Rust devs anymore
"Oops I rewrote it in Rust!". Say no more.
As someone just getting into software development I was considering choosing Ru$t as my real first language to dive into. These rules do not inspire me to contribute to coding for an overlord that wont even let me speak their name like freaking Voldemort.
You know what will be changed in the near future: The most beloved language in StackOverflow survey is going to be replaced by a new one - 2023
They killed Rust with a single document
CoC
This video would have been orders of magnitude more useful if he had compared these terms to the terms of some other common, comparable languages/projects. For example, to the best of my knowledge-- and I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked with lawyers in this arena before-- no company is ever going to allow people alter or distort their logo. Heck, at the two major software developers I've worked for, you couldn't even customize the logo for your own team, to make like team t-shirts or anything. I also suspect that the bits about needing a code of conduct is probably becoming more and more common (though I'm just guessing, I don't claim to know for sure), partly due to the rapid increase in the use of Zoom. At the company I'm currently at, we had a case where our outreach department helped user groups for our product out in minor ways, and one of those was using our professional business license of zoom to host meetings. Well, some user started screen sharing graphic pornography, talking in sexually explicit terms, pasting links to porn websites in the chat, etc. Our lawyers had to do a non-trivial amount of research, and have outside counsel validate their conclusions, about what our potential liability was, since we had implicitly 'blessed' the user group by providing the zoom call. Now, some of the stuff does sound way out there, like only being able to use their copyrighted marks for a conference if the main topic of the conference is Rust-- that just seems crazy, if I'm hosting a Security conference and I want a half-day Rust track, I should be able to properly publicize that. But the point is, while almost everything he called out seems over-the-top, I actually don't know how much of it is abnormal, vs. how much is true for lots of other software or projects, but no one ever bothers to read the terms, and the terms are only ever enforced on the rare occasion that the trademark owner believes actual brand damage is being done. As an analogy, if you just read the possible side effects of any given medication, and you don't have any baseline or context, you're going to conclude that it's hugely dangerous and that your doctor was insane or actively malicious for prescribing it. It's only once you read through the side effects for 10 other medications that you realize it's mostly just legal cover-your-ass boilerplate. I don't know how much of that is going on with the Rust Foundation, vs. how much of what he covers in this video is legitimately out of whack.
And just like that, my interest in learning/using Rust vanishes. What a shame.
You've been saved, be glad
Glad I haven't started learning yet. This is too much bs.
Guess we should all switch to zig or go back to C. I was already a bit concerned with the code of conduct for a programming language. This confirms my fears. It only gets worse.
Completely true. Idk why they did this
Seems like people have already forgotten about this COC thing
@@flarebear5346 the contributor covenant at least is subject to some interpretation. There are more politically charged CoCs like that weird geek feminism one.
Zig it is
It's only a proposal. It probably won't be approved
Rust was on my list of tech to investigate when I have some free time.
Was.
Now it sounds like next month they'll introduce a subscription plan.