Holy shit… The balls of that policy. “Hey, we took two common words of the English language for our project. They’re ours now.”
The psuedo-friendly tone where they define fair use as “all the places we want you to market for us, and none of the ones we don’t” (specifically “showing support of rust”… Not as in “our software supports rust”, but “I want to praise rust publicly”) and you use the word rust in a project… So I guess <my_sdk>-rust can probably be licensed if we ask.
I think I figured out the hack - you use the word rust, along with the logo for the still popular game rust (released 2 years before it). They’ll be paralyzed by the mental gymnastics it takes to twist their stance into a “friendly cease and desist” for months. And when it finally comes, you can insist you were talking about the game, Rust, using familiar programming concepts allegorically to comment on game mechanics and emergent design and through player interaction and feedback.
Then you say “I think I’ve heard of rust-lang in the last couple years, some people really seem to like it. But library availability is a concern, do you have a good package manager? Can I find a package for most things I might need?”
I really like rust™ as a language. but their foundation does some drama every 6 months.
I was almost done with “the book”(their official book) when this draft policy came out. they have since backed up a bit, but I really don’t want to see ‘oracle 2’.
they say they’re not going to do an oracle because ‘trust us’. i’m indecisive ever since.
I love pattern matching, I want to have 8 different ways of creating strings. what I don’t like is the way foundation wants it to go.
but if in the future I wish to make anything with rust, I’ll use the trick you mentioned :)
Holy shit… The balls of that policy. “Hey, we took two common words of the English language for our project. They’re ours now.”
The psuedo-friendly tone where they define fair use as “all the places we want you to market for us, and none of the ones we don’t” (specifically “showing support of rust”… Not as in “our software supports rust”, but “I want to praise rust publicly”) and you use the word rust in a project… So I guess <my_sdk>-rust can probably be licensed if we ask.
I think I figured out the hack - you use the word rust, along with the logo for the still popular game rust (released 2 years before it). They’ll be paralyzed by the mental gymnastics it takes to twist their stance into a “friendly cease and desist” for months. And when it finally comes, you can insist you were talking about the game, Rust, using familiar programming concepts allegorically to comment on game mechanics and emergent design and through player interaction and feedback.
Then you say “I think I’ve heard of rust-lang in the last couple years, some people really seem to like it. But library availability is a concern, do you have a good package manager? Can I find a package for most things I might need?”
I just wanna point out that what can and can’t be done with a trademark is defined by law and not by the wishes of some corpo
I really like rust™ as a language. but their foundation does some drama every 6 months.
I was almost done with “the book”(their official book) when this draft policy came out. they have since backed up a bit, but I really don’t want to see ‘oracle 2’.
they say they’re not going to do an oracle because ‘trust us’. i’m indecisive ever since.
I love pattern matching, I want to have 8 different ways of creating strings. what I don’t like is the way foundation wants it to go.
but if in the future I wish to make anything with rust, I’ll use the trick you mentioned :)