> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences
What's supposed to be wrong with this?
I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited.
I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.
The only unique part of this is that it's in the trademark policy itself rather than in a supplemental events policy when you ask to be authorized to use the trademark for your event.
Carrying firearms around is a non-issue in most of the world because in most of the world, civilian possession and use of firearms is strictly regulated if not outright banned. Obviously this is not the case in the US.
> Carrying firearms around is already a non-issue in most of the world, so it's pretty weird to focus so much on it.
Not sure which places in the world you are referring to, but it's illegal in most places, and where it's not illegal, it's generally frowned upon to be carrying guns, unless you're actively visiting areas where it's advisable to carry a gun, but those are not places you stay for long in, certainly not to live there long-term, more like areas you have to pass through.
Trademark and copyright law only goes so far, though. This is stretching both. That's what's wrong.
By the way, in some states, it's legal to carry even where private actors forbid it, so you could attend a conference where they are "forbidden", and there could be people legally carrying anyway. People will never know.
> I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited.
in most states, the decision to permit firearms on-site is made by the facility owner and must have legal posted signs
so if a hotel in Texas doesn't have legal signage disallowing carrying on-site (no signs means you can carry), you can't just impose those rules for your own function (the correct course of action would be to hold your conference at a facility that operates policies you agree with)
An easy target for whom? If you show up to a conference armed because you're paranoid about being a "target," you are a bigger danger than whatever hypothetical threat you feel you need a loaded gun on hand at all times for.
Why do you think that? For best results you would want at least two people who don't know each other, but are both well trained, carrying. Reduces the chance that something could happen unopposed.
> you are a bigger danger
Yes, the legally carrying gun owner with said gun stowed away is scarier than some madman with a gun and the intent to kill you. How could I forget?
>>>> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences
>> What's supposed to be wrong with this?
It is over-reach.
What if the policy stated that all conference participants could only eat vegan foods?
Or that the conference had to have all energy use with 100% green energy sources?
Or that all conference materials had to use the English language?
Or that the conference proceedings must pause for the call to prayer?
>> I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.
Good luck getting everyone around the world to agree what the 'basic requirements' should be.
Why not leave those details to the conference organizers?
So we have given it enough time [0] to see where the Rust Foundation is going and it turns out that I was wrong. It doesn't look good so far and there is a reason why I said the trademarks part was 'Very important'.
The foundation is slowly consuming itself into a Linux Foundation like corporate organization that is in the interests of Big Tech companies and not the community. I had these suspicions before [1] about the way it was organized, but ignored it.
Now this draconian trademark policy is strike 3 and is already putting off those supporting the organization. Before that, it was them setting up as a 501(c)6 like the Linux Foundation and afterwards then have board seats for sale for Big Tech companies as many have pointed out [2].
It just seems that this 'foundation' has become another scam.
> The foundation is slowly consuming itself into a Linux Foundation like corporate organization that is in the interests of Big Tech companies and not the community.
I'm amazed at how soured the Linux Foundation has become in the eyes of the Linux and open source community. Seven years ago the Linux Foundation removed the non-paid community members from the board, and we all knew the writing was on the wall.
Their hostility toward the GPL is, in my mind, the proof that the souring was justified. I'm not sure if this hostility is general to the LF as a whole, or just in the CNCF, but: the CNCF has a policy about what acceptable licenses are for dependencies of CNCF projects, there's a list of approved licenses, and if you want to add a dependency on a library with a different license, you have to apply to the CNCF board for an exception to use that library. The GPL is not on that list, and there's a note that the board has never approved an exception to allow a library with a GPL-family license.
The fact that a large sub-org in the Linux Foundation is allowed to ban the GPL is a disgrace.
It is important to understand that while companies have board seats, so does the project, and the structure is set up such that the project members must agree with decisions.
I think the trademark policy is further complicated by the fact Rust™ (is that how we're supposed to do it?) only has one functionally complete implementation. This is another disaster in the making, and the community is collectively putting their head in the sand. [1][2]
Frankly, I don't buy this. Many languages have a single functionally complete implementation (PHP, Perl, Nim, C#, Ocaml, Haskell, Julia) – or virtually a single one (Ruby, Go, Python) and that never proved to be a major problem to any of them.
> Many languages have a single functionally complete implementation (PHP, Perl, Nim, C#, Ocaml, Haskell, Julia) – or virtually a single one (Ruby, Go, Python) and that never proved to be a major problem to any of them.
For Ruby, which one are you referring to? CRuby, JRuby, or TruffleRuby?
Please excuse the unrelated question...I have seen this theme multiple times in the last couple of months, and believe it is open source. Does anyone if this is the case, and where to find it? Couldn't find a mention on the site itself
feels like an HOA...people who have never had any real power in their lives (but feel they really should), so they go completely overboard and impose ridiculously arbitrary impositions when given any small amount of oversight
btw, if there is a Rust conference in certain states and you don't have the proper legal signage posted wrt firearms (and I mean the hosting facility, not the conference itself), people will carry and you can't stop them
> Sounds almost like a threat of violence, so I'm not sure you want to leave this up here...
please control yourself
all I am saying is that the decision to permit carrying of weapons has state-by-state guidelines and you simply can't override these by virtue of renting a room
the relevance was the insistence of the Rust Foundation wrongly believing it had the power to impose in this realm of law
> How is this relevant to the discussion about Rust trademarks though?
The request for comment had some specific verbiage about not promoting gun violence or something to that effect. OP was probably pointing out that you may have people carrying at a Rust conference (for unrelated reasons) which would be a breach.
It's useful info. I didn't realise people can carry firearms around tech conferences. Presumably so they can shoot at people if circumstances warrant it. That's worth taking into consideration when deciding whether to go to one.
> I didn't realise people can carry firearms around tech conferences
I would say that if you are truly averse to being in the presence of armed citizens (not judging, that is perfectly acceptable), then you should stay away from entire states, because these rules apply to almost all public spaces (notable exceptions: bars, schools, and others)
every US state has some mechanism to obtain a concealed carry permit or is permitless carry, so really if you feel strongly about this, exclude the entire US
Not really. Chicago bans guns and people die from them regularly there. It’s almost like criminals don’t obey laws, how shocking is that?
If you don’t want to risk getting shot/stabbed/murdered, your only real solution is to become a hermit. It doesn’t matter where you live either, you have just about equal chances on average of being the recipient of random violence.
As a business owner, the Rust Trademark Policy is a bigger problem than this post says.
I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using any Rust in my business's software if this goes through.
I mean, when they go so far as to say that the GCC frontend is not a Rust compiler, but "GCC compiler for Rust," and you can't even give stuff away for free, it becomes a minefield for any company.
More ranty details about my misgivings are at [1].
> I have a concealed carry permit. I have firearms and other weapons. I know how to use them, and I will use them in defense of my wife and myself. And you can bet I carry them into places I consider dangerous if it is legal to... So yeah, if this policy goes through, I’m not welcome at Rust events, even if the event organizers agree with me.
The policy is about fire arms, not you. Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal? Just leave your gun at home, you'll be fine. You are welcome to attend. Your gun isn't. If you think that the Rust conference is a dangerous place where you will need your gun, I suggest you stay home. I can assure you the conferences are perfectly safe, no one has needed to defend their family at one before. Your wife will be safe as well if you don't bring your gun to the Rust conference.
--
As for the rest of your post, I would say I don't see the big deal. It seems like everything you listed would only be a problem if you're trying to start a business around Rust, using the Rust logo and name, or just generally piggybacking on Rust for profit. If that's what you wanted to do, I can see how the policy would be an affront.
But as far as someone who wants to just write programs and not build a business around Rust, what is the downside here? I appreciate that the "rust" namespace will not be polluted by unofficial crates. I appreciate they are defending their trademark.
Just the direction you don't like? If that's the case, personally I'm fine with it and encourage it. As an avid Rust user, I'll be happy to continue using the language and ecosystem; the software I write with it is very robust and efficient, so I'm happy to. If you don't want to, that's fine too. We'll have our gun-free conferences, you'll be invited, and you're free not to attend if you won't do so without your gun. But if you want to leave it behind we're happy to have you.
> Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal?
Defending myself is definitely a part of defending my family because if I am gone, there is no one else to defend them.
> If you think that the Rust conference is a dangerous place where you will need your gun, I suggest you stay home. I can assure you the conferences are perfectly safe, no one has needed to defend their family at one before.
Or themselves? Again, I claim the right to defend myself too.
While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen.
And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. They are places where crazy nuts of any persuasion may show up and open fire with impunity because they can expect no one to fire back.
The Covenant school shooter chose the school over another more secure place, and it was people with guns that took the shooter out. The Aurora, Colorado shooting was in a gun-free zone, IIRC. There are others.
By implementing this policy, the Rust Foundation will be broadcasting to every person with a killer's will and a gun that Rust events are prime targets, so ironically, this policy will be what makes Rust events dangerous.
As for the business side, imagine that the Rust Foundation takes the same dislike to me as they have taken to firearms. Parts of that policy are very open-ended, such that the Foundation could decide they don't like me and come after me on principle for putting "written in Rust" in the README without the TM or Registered marks. This policy is open-ended enough for that.
It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with.
I'm not stupid, so I'm not going to depend on the Rust Foundation.
> While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen.
You know what, you make a good point. It's only a matter of time before there's a mass shooting at a technical conference in America. I mean, we have them in schools, theatres, churches, malls, grocery stores, sports events, parades, concerts, parks, banks... why not a technical conference? Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying.
> It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with
In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. As an independent language developer, I appreciate that your point of view can work out in my favor, so I can't really disagree with it!
> Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying.
Yes, exactly.
> In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I will say that I currently do this. I use C, shell, and my own language. And for C, I use as many compilers as I can.
> In America, where we have a mental illness epidemic.
But other countries also have mental illness problems on par with the US. Why don't they have the same rates of gun violence? Why don't they have daily mass shootings?
> Culture also plays a big part
Many people believe that the US has a unique cultural problem where individuals have near-unrestricted access to firearms, and are also so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves.
Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place.
By the way, as an owner of firearms, I can tell you that there is no where near "unrestricted access" for anyone unless you're buying them illegally. It was a huge process for me to buy weapons, including a firearm from my father-in-law.
Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm.
Also, as part of getting my concealed carry, I had to attend a class, and in that class, they drilled into us that we are liable for any collateral damage from use of our weapons.
They also drilled into us the fact that we will always have to justify our use of force to our peers, and if we don't, we're going to suffer for it.
In addition, we were taught what situations were correct for using force and what situations are not.
Most of all, we were drilled to think before we do anything, including drawing our weapons.
All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once. I never drew my weapon despite him walking up to us aggressively. I used my words to force him away. I did that because that class taught me to never drew my weapon until shooting is the only recourse left to me.
So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves" is wrong, at least in my state. In general, CCW holders are the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful gun owners in the US.
> Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place.
Agreed, guns are a driving factor.
But you're also right that it's gun culture. Others here have noted Sweden has a higher per-capita rate of guns to humans than the US, the same mental health issues affect swedes as Americans, yet they don't have daily mass shootings. So even when there are a lot of guns, and mental health issues, there is still a way to prevent daily mass shootings.
> Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm.
That's great you had to go through all that, but it doesn't seem to be working at scale. People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns. Because the rest of us would have very different laws if we had our way. So really, you have to justify yourself every time a mass shooting happens. This gun culture you're putting on display here just doesn't work.
Because many if not most mass shooters acquire their weapons legally. It's like, the whole argument has become "only criminals don't follow the gun laws, so therefore we should make it as easy as possible for them to acquire weapons, because otherwise it would just inconvenience ourselves, since there's nothing we can do about criminals anyway. The best we can do is arm ourselves to the teeth everywhere we go in public life, and at least we have a fighting chance. This is the best way to run society."
> All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once.
I'm very happy this encounter worked out for you and your wife. I've been in the same scenario, many times, without a gun on me, and it can be scary indeed! Last time a man in the Castro in SF was wielding a hammer, and roared at me and my wife and her friend like a lion. It worked out fine for us, just as it worked out fine for you and yours. The question is: would this have worked out the same way if you hadn't had your gun? Yeah. Seems like it according to your story. So then what good is it doing?
> So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves"
But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it. That you didn't use it when you were provoked does point to restraint, which is admirable; but it doesn't erase the fear that you had initially felt which caused you to bring the gun in the first place. Because why else do you have it unless you feel you might use it?
Because the way I see it, the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful people in the US are people who don't bring guns with them into public life. We sometimes have scary interactions with scary people in public life, and the vast majority of the time they don't end in bloodshed, because guns aren't part of the equation. Other countries get this, America does not. The gun culture here does not allow this perspective, and instead constantly tells you that you need your gun otherwise you are unsafe without it.
The rest of us living our lives gun-free know that we can be safe without guns, and we appreciate events in our public life, such as technical conferences, to be gun-free as well.
> So even when there are a lot of guns, and mental health issues, there is still a way to prevent daily mass shootings.
Sure. Except mass shootings aren't daily, and the way to do it is to raise the cost of doing so, not to take away the right of self-defense.
> People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns.
This is very wrong in my experience. I grew up in rural Idaho where people were enthusiastic about guns. They were incredibly careful around guns and always taught me that guns are tools, not toys.
You know what depicts guns as toys? Hollywood. Video games. Other pop culture. Gangs.
It's the depiction of guns as toys or as a method to get your way that is bad, and I never saw that growing up.
Perhaps that's why there really aren't mass shootings at rural schools.
> So then what good is it doing?
Peace of mind. More on that later.
> But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it.
Actually, because I had the weapon, I felt less fearful. You said yourself that your experiences were terrifying. My experience was not for me because I had a backup plan.
You were terrified and fearful. I was not. Thus, it was not a contradiction.
And you say that plenty of terrifying experiences are resolved without guns. That's true, but it only takes once for that to be catastrophically untrue.
But plenty of such things are resolved because of guns. [1]
Also, the reason I bought a gun and started carrying? The George Floyd riots. There were shootings by rioters, which for the most part were not the people you claim are responsible for gun culture.
And by the way, I pulled a slight trick on you. Notice that I said I never drew my "weapon" in that experience. You automatically assumed I had a gun.
I didn't. I had a knife.
There is one big reason why. I'm more confident with knives than guns, to remain safe and reduce collateral damage. I carry this knife everywhere I can, even when I don't feel unsafe because it helps me feel less fearful and gives me another option.
As it turns out, that incident happened in a place I previously felt completely safe in. But I still had my knife which gave me another option should things have gone south.
"When seconds matter, the police are minutes away."
So I wasn't carrying because I was fearful. I was carrying because I was prepared.
It's funny, though; I could probably walk into a Rust event with this knife, and I would not be breaking any rules. Yet I'm sure you would not like it anyway. That shows how terrible this policy is because it only targets one thing that the Rust Foundation does not like and does not really address what people like you don't like.
As another nail in your argument that it's people like me responsible for this culture, those same people are the reason why I feel less confident with guns than knives.
I went shooting with those people a few times in my youth. In every single one, I made small mistakes with the guns, and every time, I got corrected strongly, even though I almost never made the same mistake twice. In fact, I often was corrected so strongly and publicly that I actually felt shame. It got to the point that I stopped using guns and never touched a gun for a decade and a half (except for once in basic training).
Those "enthusiastic" people actually put me off of guns. So much for spreading gun culture. Thus, I have a hard time believing your argument.
You know what would change the gun culture? Having everyone take the same safety classes that I did, to learn how to be safe, and if they are not safe, they should be chewed out by instructors like the people in my youth did me. Then the very poor depiction of guns in movies and pop culture would be more easily ignored and cha...
It's been 105 days since Jan 1, and there have been 163 mass shootings. If you look at the first chart in this link, this year is on track to have more mass shootings than any year on record:
Also, by "raise the cost of doing so" do you mean raise the cost of guns? Or what? Either way, no one is talking about taking away the right of self-defense in general; we've been talking about restricting the presence of firearms at a conference. As always, when you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.
> This is very wrong in my experience. I grew up in rural Idaho where people were enthusiastic about guns. They were incredibly careful around guns and always taught me that guns are tools, not toys.
Unfortunately, the gun culture of safety which you describe has not been properly exported from rural Idaho. Gun enthusiasts have failed, and the result is that we have a sick culture of gun enthusiasts. It would be great if we could have a lot of guns and have a culture of gun safety like Sweden, but that's not the gun culture I see around me in America. The culture of safety and respect for guns is foreign to me; instead I see a lot of braggadocio, toxic masculinity, threats, fake patriotism, and a general disrespect for the awesome power of these weapons. They are fetishized and people wrap their entire identities around their weapons. That's not the culture you describe.
> You know what depicts guns as toys? Hollywood. Video games. Other pop culture. Gangs.
Sure, and I'll agree that's part of sick gun culture.
> Perhaps that's why there really aren't mass shootings at rural schools.
So you're admitting there are still mass shootings at rural schools despite a culture of gun safety and proliferation of guns in the community?
> Actually, because I had the weapon, I felt less fearful. You said yourself that your experiences were terrifying. My experience was not for me because I had a backup plan.
I've already said that it's great that you want to defend your family, and it's great that you were able to control yourself and not attack anyone. You said you grew up in a culture that respects guns and you took classes. Good on you.
But I'll still note that you chose to have the weapon on you, and what drove that decision? Because you felt less safe without it, it seems. You were afraid, then equipped a weapon, then you were less afraid. Okay, no shame in that.
But you're not everyone. Politicians are passing laws to make it easier for people to buy guns, without also making sure that safe gun culture proliferates. What's happened is that gun enthusiasts have created an "eternal September" situation, where there are so many new guns and new gun owners being created, that they cannot be properly enculturated. That's the fault of gun owners and enthusiasts.
> There were shootings by rioters, which for the most part were not the people you claim are responsible for gun culture.
Huh? I blame gun owners and enthusiasts and manufacturers primarily for sick gun culture. If people are rioting and shooting, then I blame them.
But let's talk about BLM. In the news right now is the story that the governor of Texas aspires to pardon a man who was found guilty of murder with a gun d...
> Either way, no one is talking about taking away the right of self-defense in general; we've been talking about restricting the presence of firearms at a conference. As always, when you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.
Taking away the tools to do it is the same as taking away the right for the weaker of us. Especially women.
If a woman carries a gun to a conference, she has a good way of avoiding sexual assault. Without one, not so much.
> So you're admitting there are still mass shootings at rural schools despite a culture of gun safety and proliferation of guns in the community?
That is not what I said. I know of no shootings at rural schools off of the top of my head.
> Because you felt less safe without it, it seems. You were afraid, then equipped a weapon, then you were less afraid. Okay, no shame in that.
Uh, no. I said I felt perfectly safe in the place where it happened before it happened.
I wear my knife by habit. I put it on when I dress in the morning and take it off when I get ready for bed. I wear it even when I never leave the house.
Trust me: I feel perfectly safe at home and would still feel that way even if I didn't carry the knife.
> Politicians are passing laws to make it easier for people to buy guns
Funny. I haven't heard of any.
> In the news right now is the story that the governor of Texas aspires to pardon a man who was found guilty of murder with a gun during those riots. Tell me, what message do you think this sends to gun enthusiasts? Do you think it will make gun culture more safe, or less safe?
More safe.
What you leave out (whether intentional or not) is that the man who was killed put a gun in the face of the man who killed him. The man who killed him did nothing before that, but I guarantee you that when someone puts a gun in my face, I'm going to shoot.
That man was only convicted because the prosecutor withheld evidence.
> also have been subjected to active shooter drills their entire childhood -- something that's foreign to you and me.
I had those too. In Idaho. Where there had never been an actual active shooter.
It's part of being prepared.
> Today, there is no sick knife culture where people use knives to kill children, teens, people in grocery stores and churches.
There is in the UK, which just shows that with the bad culture, killers would use knives in the absence of guns.
> The reason your gun isn't welcome at a Rust conference is because your culture of gun safety died.
If it did, by the way, it's also the fault of politicians claiming that AR-15's are "weapons of war," that nobody needs them or even sport rifles, that nobody needs handguns because the police exist. The sick gun culture comes from gun bros and the people trying to ban guns by claiming that they are only used for nefarious purposes.
This is one reason the safe gun culture is foreign to you: because people are claiming it doesn't exist.
> And let's be honest, you're voting for the people who are helping kill your culture of gun safety, right?
Uh, no. Not unless the other option is worse.
> The NRA used to be an organization that cared about gun safety, but now they're basically a PR branch and lobbyists for gun manufacturers.
I don't support the NRA.
> The Republican party leadership doesn't care about gun safety, because if they did they would pass common-sense gun reform laws, which are supported by the majority of even conservatives!
Republican politicians don't care what voters think. They care what lobbyists think. I hate lobbyists.
But what are "common sense gun reform laws"? Taking away guns? No, that's not common sense. Making it harder to get guns? Then you would just tip the balance of safe gun owners and unsafe gun owners in favor of unsafe gun owners because they'll go through the extra hoops, or buy illegally.
A lot of mass shootings could be stopped by good old-fash...
What I'm hearing from you is a lot of excuse making and rationalization. This kind of thinking maybe worked 10... 20 years ago. But not in 2023. 4 dead and 28+ injured at a birthday party while we were having this conversation over the weekend. In Alabama of all places, not a liberal progressive bastion with no guns. There are plenty of guns in Alabama. And yet you're not even safe at a birthday party. Add it to the list.
You say that guns can protect women from sexual assault, but that's a rationalization. If you want to protect women, they are very vocal right now about how they want to be protected, and by and large they're not asking for guns. They are asking for access to healthcare and liberty over their own bodies, which the people you vote for are taking from them. So please spare me the intonations about how a woman can use a gun to protect herself from men. No, women are being targeted right now by men using the law, and no matter how many guns women have, they cannot protect themselves from that.
> The sick gun culture comes from gun bros and the people trying to ban guns by claiming that they are only used for nefarious purposes.
You point out that people who aren't familiar with guns... aren't familiar with guns. Sure. The reason why they point to these weapons as a danger and menace to society is that the only time they encounter them is when they're at the other end of the barrel.
Incidentally, how often have you ever found yourself at the other end of the barrel? There are people in this country who have survived multiple mass shootings. But have you personally ever been in the position where you were being hunted by a person armed to the teeth? Has a person ever pointed gun and shot at you with the intent to murder you?
I understand you don't want to be in that situation, and if you were maybe you would feel safe because you had your gun or knife on you. But I'm wondering if you've actually been hunted by a person with a gun who aimed to kill you. I'm very curious to know.
Because many of the people who have been in that situation come out of it very against guns. And yes, they call for banning such weapons, because they see what they did to their friends' bodies and their own minds, and they can't comprehend why you need it for anything at all except for killing people. Others go in the opposite direction and start stockpiling an arsenal because they will never feel safe again. So if we call these reactions "sick gun culture", we must note that the catalyst for these extreme positions (no guns / all the guns) are mass shootings themselves.
> That is not what I said. I know of no shootings at rural schools off of the top of my head.
The Associated Press examined records for the 10 deadliest shootings in American schools. All but one of those attacks took place in a town with fewer than 75,000 people. Most were in communities of less than 50,000 people.
Uvalde is a town of 15k people in a red state with a high percentage of gun owners and a strong culture of gun ownership. And yet, a psycho mowed down children at a school, the police with guns and all the firepower in the world did nothing except hold parents back.
Red flag laws, increased mental health support, closing loopholes on background checks, requiring permits, requiring training, banning the sale of high capacity magazines, banning the sale of assault-style weapons. These ar...
The policy is about pretecting a TRADEMARK, and the local law of the land or norms wrt personal arms is as irrelevant to a TRADEMARK as the local norms on weed or drinking on sundays or public dress codes.
A property owner or an event organizer has a say in things like that, not a trademark copyright document.
I don't know how you arrived at such a silly idea from that comment. The problem is as stated, not this other inexplicable random nonsense that can not be derived or implied or extrapolated from that remark.
As I said already, right there, but I guess I'll repeat, because that isn't stupid: An event organizer could stipulate a condition like that if they wanted, subject to local laws allowing. A property owner could stipulate a condition like that, subject to local laws allowing.
The Rust Foundation is not necessarily either of those entities, and so has just no business at all even expressing an opinion on things that are none of their business.
And even in cases where they might be the event organizer, a trademark copyright has no relationship one way or another with such things as what is essentially a dress code or a local facility security measure or behavior standard. They can absolutely say that guns are not allowed at any events they happen to host, the same as they can say that shoes and shirts are required.
But none of that has any place in the document laying out terms protecting the use of a trademark.
Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is.
You capitalized "TRADEMARK" several times, so I thought you were bringing attention specifically to that aspect. I'm a bit confused now, based on your second comment. Was there another reason you were all-capsing "TRADEMARK"?
It seems to me that an organization doesn't want their brand being associated with certain kinds of behavior. I realize you may want to engage in that behavior, but doesn't the brand have the right to control their logo?
Edit: You heavily edited your comment after I had already replied to it, which is tricky. You should probably have written a new post if you had more to say.
> Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is.
I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event. For starters, we're talking about behaviors rather than identities. It's okay to be a gun owner, just like it's okay to be black, gay, or Christian. No one is trying to restrict any of those identities.
What we're talking about here is that Rust doesn't want their brand and logo associated with certain behaviors. Namely, the behavior of bringing a gun to a technical meetup. You may feel that's an overreach, sure. But is it legal? Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment?
If it's not legal in certain jurisdictions, can't they still restrict the use of their logo in those jurisdictions? If they can't, doesn't that mean all brands have lost all control of their IP in those jurisdictions?
"I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event."
Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document.
And as I've repeated mutiple times now, an event organizer or a property owner are perfectly able to set such limits (assuming local laws allow). That could even be the foundation if they happen to be the ones hosting some event.
I don't know why you keep ignoring that yet expect to be taken seriously as having any sort of point.
I understand fully that you have made the point that property owners and event organizers are perfectly able to set limits on gun possession, and I agree with this statement.
However, I don't see how the right of physical property owners to set limits on the use of their property restricts the rights of IP owners to set limits on the use of their property. You haven't made the connection between the two. If you feel you've made that point clearly, I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. You'll have to reframe your argument instead of simply repeating it. I'm not picking up what you're putting down.
> Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document.
This is where we disagree. I think it is squarely within the scope of trademark law, as long as it complies with the First Amendment, including fair use. That's what "ownership" means.
If anyone were allowed to use any mark they want at any event they want, and the rights holder has no say over that, then what "rights" do they actually have? What does trademark actually mean?
Let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose you wanted to host a conference about all things Disney. You brand your conference with Disney logos, Disney word marks, and Disney characters. You advertise the event and charge money to attend.
However, this Disney conference is also a satanic blood orgy.
Does Disney have the right to restrict the conference from using their logo? Satanic blood orgies are allowed, the venue has okayed it, and it's allowed in the state. The satanic blood orgy aspect is legal and allowed.
Doesn't Disney still have the right to send a cease-and-desist letter to the conference?
If they don't, can you please explain how trademarks work in your worldview?
Furthermore, if what you say is true, then what is the legal basis for all of these artists restricting at which events their songs can be played:
It seems to me that a trademark, such as the Rust logo, should have more protection than a copyright of a song. So why can't Rust restrict the use of its logo based on the character of a gathering, while musicians can restrict the playing of their songs based on the character of those gatherings in the linked article?
> I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event. For starters, we're talking about behaviors rather than identities.
I find your attempted dichotomy between "identities" and "behaviors" unpersuasive.
"Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"?
Yeah, no.
And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things.
> Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment?
Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness, and become even less likely to use Rust for anything than I was before (the probability of that was already extremely low, btw, for actual technical reasons rather than political virtue signaling, but a discussion of that would not be on-topic for this thread).
> "Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"?
Well, aside from the fact that being black has little to do with wearing corn rows, and being gay has little to do with kissing (I'll grant that praying is tightly coupled to being Christian), I think it's fine for an IP holder to set a dress code, and to prohibit what kind of sexual activity can be endorsed using their IP. That's their right. Doesn't Disney get to say "no" to strip clubs who want to hold Disney nights, with official Disney logos and everything? The legal basis for them saying no to that is trademark law, which itself is rooted in the US Constitution.
The praying thing would be a can of worms because of how religion works in our country, we'd have to talk about a more specific hypothetical for that to be a vehicle for productive discussion.
> And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things.
Okay, so you agree with me that the original poster was saying that the problem was with the legal vehicle used to enforce this policy. That poster made it seem that my inference was silly and inexplicable random nonsense, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who took it that way.
But that still doesn't clear up if they can't use trademark for this purpose, and nothing you've said in your post really addresses that. Also there is a question of whether or not Rust should be able to restrict whether or not firearms are allowed at events aspiring to strongly associate themselves with Rust, specifically by using their trademarked logo.
>> Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment?
> Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness
Great! So we are in agreement. But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons? I understand that you think it's the wrong use of trademark (and others have said that maybe a separate venue or event license is more appropriate), but that still doesn't mean that trademark can't be used like this. That is not clear to me.
Either way, this seems like the best outcome, where everyone exercises their free speech rights, and right to association, while maintaining ownership rights. Rust gets to build a community they want, you get to not associate with them if you so choose, you and I are free to use whatever language we want, you and I are free to laugh at anyone we want, and the only thing you can't do is hold an event with Rust IP and allow people to bring their guns. You are still free to hold an event and invite people to bring their guns, but you won't be allowed to use the Rust IP. A small price to pay for freedom and liberty.
> But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons?
I "asserted" nothing of the sort. In fact I said exactly the opposite. Go back and read the part where I said "Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness...".
I saw where you state the opposite and I indicated that by saying "great we agree!" But you also said this:
> I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things.
What did you mean by this if not that trademark cannot be used to enforce where/when/how a trademark is used? Rust wants to do exactly that and you say they have no business doing so under trademark law. Can you please clarify? Because your statements seem contradictory.
Anyone have a link to whatever this post is talking about? I can't find one in the article and don't pay enough attention to rust to already know the context
Edit: This whole thread went to hell. There's like 2-3 people that are really vested about this situation and have made posts, and articles elsewhere that make their viewpoints seem bigger. Also the biggest comment thread is about a gun rights tangent. GG.
---------------------------------------
In some ways this is a good thing - organizations should take steps to develop better brand credibility. Sometimes I just want to know if something is an official package/event/documentation/account/etc. I want to be able to go to a blog post, see an image and know that's an official Rust affiliated account without having to memorize names or read about someone's profile history.
The panic about people being afraid of being sued for just mentioning rust seems farfetched. The policy outlines some pretty liberal fair-use, and would probably only take legal action in extreme cases.
Of course, I doubt this is going to go over well. I doubt people will take the time to understand how to use the trademarks correctly and it'll lead to a situation where nobody follows it so the whole excercise in credibility will be pointless.
Back in the day the Ada people had a reputation for being very "controlling", but they didn't stop the Gnat people naming their company "Ada Core Technologies", and they didn't stop the adahome.com people using that domain name or writing "Ada Home: The Web Site for Ada" in big letters on top of their webpage.
It's certainly a different approach - that's the big problem, people aren't used to this kind of approach.
I just watched a video where someone, in response to the policy of not having 'rust' in a crate name, brought up how npm allows 'node', and golang allows 'go' in their package names. And those were mistakes, way more for npm, which they eventually kind of fixed with namespaces. And cargo is not getting namespaces, in fact the whole package system is pretty but that's a separate thing.
My bet is that this whole is going to be a disaster, but maybe this is a baby step for more professionalism for future projects to learn from - even if it's about what not to do.
> Also the biggest comment thread is about a gun rights tangent. GG.
This is because the Rust trademark policy mentions firearms for some reason. Some people who are used to the Linux trademark policy find this bizarre and off-putting.
> what does a trademark policy have to do with guns?
In the case of this particular trademark policy, it's because they won't endorse an event that allows attendees to carry firearms. They consider the use/display of their marks in a way that suggests they endorsed an event when they did not to be an infringement of their trademark. They provide a basic set of conditions that should be met "at minimum" in order for them to endorse an event and grant the use of the marks. One of those conditions is that the event prohibits the carrying of firearms by attendees.
Except Rust is a language much larger than the foundation. They don't control who uses the Rust language and their attempts to control who can talk about Rust are just their attempts to do something they shouldn't.
After reading for a bit I'm totally lost. I'm what sense does this "foundation" own the programming language rust and/or wield control over it?
Specifically if the toolchain developers and users sent the foundation email to spam and moved on with their lives as if this group didn't exist, does anything change?
The Rust Foundation was created for a few reasons, but among them was to accept control of the trademarks from Mozilla. “The Rust Project” is not a legal entity, and that causes a lot of issues. The Foundation is, and can accept and use resources on behalf of the project.
Furthermore, the Project has significant representation on the Foundation board. The Foundation cannot just do whatever they want, against the project.
This policy was written by several Project members, in conjunction with the Foundation legal. So…
The problem of their intentions, and the character of the authors and approvers, is not at all solved by "they asked for comment and recieved comment"
The problem is just what kinds of outlandish things they thought it was within their right to control. They still think that even after "recieving comment", and that is a problem.
I have half a mind to start a framework and throw a conference all about using Rust to write the firmwares to intelligent extra-safe guns that refuse to fire without biometric and other extra super safety measures like distance from a registered bluetooth or wifi device, gps location, remote disable by police, etc.
Surely the Rust Foundation doesn't insist that guns be hackable and error prone by being written in java or c or anything but the most reliable language available?
(I don't own any guns, and if I did I would want it to be as dumb as a hammer not something controlled by software, so I'm neither gun-nut nor gun-control-nut, and this post is only serious about the point not the hypothetical used to illustrate the point.)
98 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 153 ms ] threadTelling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences or you’re having copyright infringement or no rust in package name
What's supposed to be wrong with this?
I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited.
I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.
Not sure which places in the world you are referring to, but it's illegal in most places, and where it's not illegal, it's generally frowned upon to be carrying guns, unless you're actively visiting areas where it's advisable to carry a gun, but those are not places you stay for long in, certainly not to live there long-term, more like areas you have to pass through.
By the way, in some states, it's legal to carry even where private actors forbid it, so you could attend a conference where they are "forbidden", and there could be people legally carrying anyway. People will never know.
in most states, the decision to permit firearms on-site is made by the facility owner and must have legal posted signs
so if a hotel in Texas doesn't have legal signage disallowing carrying on-site (no signs means you can carry), you can't just impose those rules for your own function (the correct course of action would be to hold your conference at a facility that operates policies you agree with)
I sure as hell wouldn't want to attend conferences where firearms are forbidden. I don't want to be an easy target.
The idea that carrying a firearm is inherently dangerous is absurd.
>> What's supposed to be wrong with this?
It is over-reach.
What if the policy stated that all conference participants could only eat vegan foods?
Or that the conference had to have all energy use with 100% green energy sources?
Or that all conference materials had to use the English language?
Or that the conference proceedings must pause for the call to prayer?
>> I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.
Good luck getting everyone around the world to agree what the 'basic requirements' should be.
Why not leave those details to the conference organizers?
The foundation is slowly consuming itself into a Linux Foundation like corporate organization that is in the interests of Big Tech companies and not the community. I had these suspicions before [1] about the way it was organized, but ignored it.
Now this draconian trademark policy is strike 3 and is already putting off those supporting the organization. Before that, it was them setting up as a 501(c)6 like the Linux Foundation and afterwards then have board seats for sale for Big Tech companies as many have pointed out [2].
It just seems that this 'foundation' has become another scam.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24199702
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26091052
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316
I'm amazed at how soured the Linux Foundation has become in the eyes of the Linux and open source community. Seven years ago the Linux Foundation removed the non-paid community members from the board, and we all knew the writing was on the wall.
The fact that a large sub-org in the Linux Foundation is allowed to ban the GPL is a disgrace.
Which just incidentally happened the same year Microsoft joined it becoming a platinum member.
I think the trademark policy is further complicated by the fact Rust™ (is that how we're supposed to do it?) only has one functionally complete implementation. This is another disaster in the making, and the community is collectively putting their head in the sand. [1][2]
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31779218
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31435473
Frankly, I don't buy this. Many languages have a single functionally complete implementation (PHP, Perl, Nim, C#, Ocaml, Haskell, Julia) – or virtually a single one (Ruby, Go, Python) and that never proved to be a major problem to any of them.
For Ruby, which one are you referring to? CRuby, JRuby, or TruffleRuby?
[0]: https://www.getzola.org/themes/zerm/
And in particular it is using the pink colors.
Light-on-dark is difficult to read for some people with astigmatism.
btw, if there is a Rust conference in certain states and you don't have the proper legal signage posted wrt firearms (and I mean the hosting facility, not the conference itself), people will carry and you can't stop them
please control yourself
all I am saying is that the decision to permit carrying of weapons has state-by-state guidelines and you simply can't override these by virtue of renting a room
the relevance was the insistence of the Rust Foundation wrongly believing it had the power to impose in this realm of law
The request for comment had some specific verbiage about not promoting gun violence or something to that effect. OP was probably pointing out that you may have people carrying at a Rust conference (for unrelated reasons) which would be a breach.
I would say that if you are truly averse to being in the presence of armed citizens (not judging, that is perfectly acceptable), then you should stay away from entire states, because these rules apply to almost all public spaces (notable exceptions: bars, schools, and others)
If you don’t want to risk getting shot/stabbed/murdered, your only real solution is to become a hermit. It doesn’t matter where you live either, you have just about equal chances on average of being the recipient of random violence.
I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using any Rust in my business's software if this goes through.
I mean, when they go so far as to say that the GCC frontend is not a Rust compiler, but "GCC compiler for Rust," and you can't even give stuff away for free, it becomes a minefield for any company.
More ranty details about my misgivings are at [1].
[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2023/04/rust-is-dead-to-me/
The policy is about fire arms, not you. Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal? Just leave your gun at home, you'll be fine. You are welcome to attend. Your gun isn't. If you think that the Rust conference is a dangerous place where you will need your gun, I suggest you stay home. I can assure you the conferences are perfectly safe, no one has needed to defend their family at one before. Your wife will be safe as well if you don't bring your gun to the Rust conference.
--
As for the rest of your post, I would say I don't see the big deal. It seems like everything you listed would only be a problem if you're trying to start a business around Rust, using the Rust logo and name, or just generally piggybacking on Rust for profit. If that's what you wanted to do, I can see how the policy would be an affront.
But as far as someone who wants to just write programs and not build a business around Rust, what is the downside here? I appreciate that the "rust" namespace will not be polluted by unofficial crates. I appreciate they are defending their trademark.
Just the direction you don't like? If that's the case, personally I'm fine with it and encourage it. As an avid Rust user, I'll be happy to continue using the language and ecosystem; the software I write with it is very robust and efficient, so I'm happy to. If you don't want to, that's fine too. We'll have our gun-free conferences, you'll be invited, and you're free not to attend if you won't do so without your gun. But if you want to leave it behind we're happy to have you.
Defending myself is definitely a part of defending my family because if I am gone, there is no one else to defend them.
> If you think that the Rust conference is a dangerous place where you will need your gun, I suggest you stay home. I can assure you the conferences are perfectly safe, no one has needed to defend their family at one before.
Or themselves? Again, I claim the right to defend myself too.
While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen.
And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. They are places where crazy nuts of any persuasion may show up and open fire with impunity because they can expect no one to fire back.
The Covenant school shooter chose the school over another more secure place, and it was people with guns that took the shooter out. The Aurora, Colorado shooting was in a gun-free zone, IIRC. There are others.
By implementing this policy, the Rust Foundation will be broadcasting to every person with a killer's will and a gun that Rust events are prime targets, so ironically, this policy will be what makes Rust events dangerous.
As for the business side, imagine that the Rust Foundation takes the same dislike to me as they have taken to firearms. Parts of that policy are very open-ended, such that the Foundation could decide they don't like me and come after me on principle for putting "written in Rust" in the README without the TM or Registered marks. This policy is open-ended enough for that.
It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with.
I'm not stupid, so I'm not going to depend on the Rust Foundation.
You know what, you make a good point. It's only a matter of time before there's a mass shooting at a technical conference in America. I mean, we have them in schools, theatres, churches, malls, grocery stores, sports events, parades, concerts, parks, banks... why not a technical conference? Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying.
> It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with
In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. As an independent language developer, I appreciate that your point of view can work out in my favor, so I can't really disagree with it!
Yes, exactly.
> In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I will say that I currently do this. I use C, shell, and my own language. And for C, I use as many compilers as I can.
My first paragraph was 1 part sarcasm, 1 part cynicism, 2 parts accepting the grim reality of America.
Can you back that up? That’s not my experience from living in a country with no guns, hence no mass shootings.
But other countries also have mental illness problems on par with the US. Why don't they have the same rates of gun violence? Why don't they have daily mass shootings?
> Culture also plays a big part
Many people believe that the US has a unique cultural problem where individuals have near-unrestricted access to firearms, and are also so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves.
By the way, as an owner of firearms, I can tell you that there is no where near "unrestricted access" for anyone unless you're buying them illegally. It was a huge process for me to buy weapons, including a firearm from my father-in-law.
Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm.
Also, as part of getting my concealed carry, I had to attend a class, and in that class, they drilled into us that we are liable for any collateral damage from use of our weapons.
They also drilled into us the fact that we will always have to justify our use of force to our peers, and if we don't, we're going to suffer for it.
In addition, we were taught what situations were correct for using force and what situations are not.
Most of all, we were drilled to think before we do anything, including drawing our weapons.
All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once. I never drew my weapon despite him walking up to us aggressively. I used my words to force him away. I did that because that class taught me to never drew my weapon until shooting is the only recourse left to me.
So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves" is wrong, at least in my state. In general, CCW holders are the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful gun owners in the US.
Agreed, guns are a driving factor.
But you're also right that it's gun culture. Others here have noted Sweden has a higher per-capita rate of guns to humans than the US, the same mental health issues affect swedes as Americans, yet they don't have daily mass shootings. So even when there are a lot of guns, and mental health issues, there is still a way to prevent daily mass shootings.
> Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm.
That's great you had to go through all that, but it doesn't seem to be working at scale. People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns. Because the rest of us would have very different laws if we had our way. So really, you have to justify yourself every time a mass shooting happens. This gun culture you're putting on display here just doesn't work.
Because many if not most mass shooters acquire their weapons legally. It's like, the whole argument has become "only criminals don't follow the gun laws, so therefore we should make it as easy as possible for them to acquire weapons, because otherwise it would just inconvenience ourselves, since there's nothing we can do about criminals anyway. The best we can do is arm ourselves to the teeth everywhere we go in public life, and at least we have a fighting chance. This is the best way to run society."
> All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once.
I'm very happy this encounter worked out for you and your wife. I've been in the same scenario, many times, without a gun on me, and it can be scary indeed! Last time a man in the Castro in SF was wielding a hammer, and roared at me and my wife and her friend like a lion. It worked out fine for us, just as it worked out fine for you and yours. The question is: would this have worked out the same way if you hadn't had your gun? Yeah. Seems like it according to your story. So then what good is it doing?
> So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves"
But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it. That you didn't use it when you were provoked does point to restraint, which is admirable; but it doesn't erase the fear that you had initially felt which caused you to bring the gun in the first place. Because why else do you have it unless you feel you might use it?
Because the way I see it, the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful people in the US are people who don't bring guns with them into public life. We sometimes have scary interactions with scary people in public life, and the vast majority of the time they don't end in bloodshed, because guns aren't part of the equation. Other countries get this, America does not. The gun culture here does not allow this perspective, and instead constantly tells you that you need your gun otherwise you are unsafe without it.
The rest of us living our lives gun-free know that we can be safe without guns, and we appreciate events in our public life, such as technical conferences, to be gun-free as well.
Sure. Except mass shootings aren't daily, and the way to do it is to raise the cost of doing so, not to take away the right of self-defense.
> People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns.
This is very wrong in my experience. I grew up in rural Idaho where people were enthusiastic about guns. They were incredibly careful around guns and always taught me that guns are tools, not toys.
You know what depicts guns as toys? Hollywood. Video games. Other pop culture. Gangs.
It's the depiction of guns as toys or as a method to get your way that is bad, and I never saw that growing up.
Perhaps that's why there really aren't mass shootings at rural schools.
> So then what good is it doing?
Peace of mind. More on that later.
> But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it.
Actually, because I had the weapon, I felt less fearful. You said yourself that your experiences were terrifying. My experience was not for me because I had a backup plan.
You were terrified and fearful. I was not. Thus, it was not a contradiction.
And you say that plenty of terrifying experiences are resolved without guns. That's true, but it only takes once for that to be catastrophically untrue.
But plenty of such things are resolved because of guns. [1]
Also, the reason I bought a gun and started carrying? The George Floyd riots. There were shootings by rioters, which for the most part were not the people you claim are responsible for gun culture.
And by the way, I pulled a slight trick on you. Notice that I said I never drew my "weapon" in that experience. You automatically assumed I had a gun.
I didn't. I had a knife.
There is one big reason why. I'm more confident with knives than guns, to remain safe and reduce collateral damage. I carry this knife everywhere I can, even when I don't feel unsafe because it helps me feel less fearful and gives me another option.
As it turns out, that incident happened in a place I previously felt completely safe in. But I still had my knife which gave me another option should things have gone south.
"When seconds matter, the police are minutes away."
So I wasn't carrying because I was fearful. I was carrying because I was prepared.
It's funny, though; I could probably walk into a Rust event with this knife, and I would not be breaking any rules. Yet I'm sure you would not like it anyway. That shows how terrible this policy is because it only targets one thing that the Rust Foundation does not like and does not really address what people like you don't like.
As another nail in your argument that it's people like me responsible for this culture, those same people are the reason why I feel less confident with guns than knives.
I went shooting with those people a few times in my youth. In every single one, I made small mistakes with the guns, and every time, I got corrected strongly, even though I almost never made the same mistake twice. In fact, I often was corrected so strongly and publicly that I actually felt shame. It got to the point that I stopped using guns and never touched a gun for a decade and a half (except for once in basic training).
Those "enthusiastic" people actually put me off of guns. So much for spreading gun culture. Thus, I have a hard time believing your argument.
You know what would change the gun culture? Having everyone take the same safety classes that I did, to learn how to be safe, and if they are not safe, they should be chewed out by instructors like the people in my youth did me. Then the very poor depiction of guns in movies and pop culture would be more easily ignored and cha...
On average, yes, there is a mass shooting in the US every day:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts/...
It's been 105 days since Jan 1, and there have been 163 mass shootings. If you look at the first chart in this link, this year is on track to have more mass shootings than any year on record:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/us/how-many-mass-shootings-20...
Also, by "raise the cost of doing so" do you mean raise the cost of guns? Or what? Either way, no one is talking about taking away the right of self-defense in general; we've been talking about restricting the presence of firearms at a conference. As always, when you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.
> This is very wrong in my experience. I grew up in rural Idaho where people were enthusiastic about guns. They were incredibly careful around guns and always taught me that guns are tools, not toys.
Unfortunately, the gun culture of safety which you describe has not been properly exported from rural Idaho. Gun enthusiasts have failed, and the result is that we have a sick culture of gun enthusiasts. It would be great if we could have a lot of guns and have a culture of gun safety like Sweden, but that's not the gun culture I see around me in America. The culture of safety and respect for guns is foreign to me; instead I see a lot of braggadocio, toxic masculinity, threats, fake patriotism, and a general disrespect for the awesome power of these weapons. They are fetishized and people wrap their entire identities around their weapons. That's not the culture you describe.
> You know what depicts guns as toys? Hollywood. Video games. Other pop culture. Gangs.
Sure, and I'll agree that's part of sick gun culture.
> Perhaps that's why there really aren't mass shootings at rural schools.
So you're admitting there are still mass shootings at rural schools despite a culture of gun safety and proliferation of guns in the community?
> Actually, because I had the weapon, I felt less fearful. You said yourself that your experiences were terrifying. My experience was not for me because I had a backup plan.
I've already said that it's great that you want to defend your family, and it's great that you were able to control yourself and not attack anyone. You said you grew up in a culture that respects guns and you took classes. Good on you.
But I'll still note that you chose to have the weapon on you, and what drove that decision? Because you felt less safe without it, it seems. You were afraid, then equipped a weapon, then you were less afraid. Okay, no shame in that.
But you're not everyone. Politicians are passing laws to make it easier for people to buy guns, without also making sure that safe gun culture proliferates. What's happened is that gun enthusiasts have created an "eternal September" situation, where there are so many new guns and new gun owners being created, that they cannot be properly enculturated. That's the fault of gun owners and enthusiasts.
> There were shootings by rioters, which for the most part were not the people you claim are responsible for gun culture.
Huh? I blame gun owners and enthusiasts and manufacturers primarily for sick gun culture. If people are rioting and shooting, then I blame them.
But let's talk about BLM. In the news right now is the story that the governor of Texas aspires to pardon a man who was found guilty of murder with a gun d...
Taking away the tools to do it is the same as taking away the right for the weaker of us. Especially women.
If a woman carries a gun to a conference, she has a good way of avoiding sexual assault. Without one, not so much.
> So you're admitting there are still mass shootings at rural schools despite a culture of gun safety and proliferation of guns in the community?
That is not what I said. I know of no shootings at rural schools off of the top of my head.
> Because you felt less safe without it, it seems. You were afraid, then equipped a weapon, then you were less afraid. Okay, no shame in that.
Uh, no. I said I felt perfectly safe in the place where it happened before it happened.
I wear my knife by habit. I put it on when I dress in the morning and take it off when I get ready for bed. I wear it even when I never leave the house.
Trust me: I feel perfectly safe at home and would still feel that way even if I didn't carry the knife.
> Politicians are passing laws to make it easier for people to buy guns
Funny. I haven't heard of any.
> In the news right now is the story that the governor of Texas aspires to pardon a man who was found guilty of murder with a gun during those riots. Tell me, what message do you think this sends to gun enthusiasts? Do you think it will make gun culture more safe, or less safe?
More safe.
What you leave out (whether intentional or not) is that the man who was killed put a gun in the face of the man who killed him. The man who killed him did nothing before that, but I guarantee you that when someone puts a gun in my face, I'm going to shoot.
That man was only convicted because the prosecutor withheld evidence.
> also have been subjected to active shooter drills their entire childhood -- something that's foreign to you and me.
I had those too. In Idaho. Where there had never been an actual active shooter.
It's part of being prepared.
> Today, there is no sick knife culture where people use knives to kill children, teens, people in grocery stores and churches.
There is in the UK, which just shows that with the bad culture, killers would use knives in the absence of guns.
> The reason your gun isn't welcome at a Rust conference is because your culture of gun safety died.
If it did, by the way, it's also the fault of politicians claiming that AR-15's are "weapons of war," that nobody needs them or even sport rifles, that nobody needs handguns because the police exist. The sick gun culture comes from gun bros and the people trying to ban guns by claiming that they are only used for nefarious purposes.
This is one reason the safe gun culture is foreign to you: because people are claiming it doesn't exist.
> And let's be honest, you're voting for the people who are helping kill your culture of gun safety, right?
Uh, no. Not unless the other option is worse.
> The NRA used to be an organization that cared about gun safety, but now they're basically a PR branch and lobbyists for gun manufacturers.
I don't support the NRA.
> The Republican party leadership doesn't care about gun safety, because if they did they would pass common-sense gun reform laws, which are supported by the majority of even conservatives!
Republican politicians don't care what voters think. They care what lobbyists think. I hate lobbyists.
But what are "common sense gun reform laws"? Taking away guns? No, that's not common sense. Making it harder to get guns? Then you would just tip the balance of safe gun owners and unsafe gun owners in favor of unsafe gun owners because they'll go through the extra hoops, or buy illegally.
A lot of mass shootings could be stopped by good old-fash...
You say that guns can protect women from sexual assault, but that's a rationalization. If you want to protect women, they are very vocal right now about how they want to be protected, and by and large they're not asking for guns. They are asking for access to healthcare and liberty over their own bodies, which the people you vote for are taking from them. So please spare me the intonations about how a woman can use a gun to protect herself from men. No, women are being targeted right now by men using the law, and no matter how many guns women have, they cannot protect themselves from that.
> The sick gun culture comes from gun bros and the people trying to ban guns by claiming that they are only used for nefarious purposes.
You point out that people who aren't familiar with guns... aren't familiar with guns. Sure. The reason why they point to these weapons as a danger and menace to society is that the only time they encounter them is when they're at the other end of the barrel.
Incidentally, how often have you ever found yourself at the other end of the barrel? There are people in this country who have survived multiple mass shootings. But have you personally ever been in the position where you were being hunted by a person armed to the teeth? Has a person ever pointed gun and shot at you with the intent to murder you?
I understand you don't want to be in that situation, and if you were maybe you would feel safe because you had your gun or knife on you. But I'm wondering if you've actually been hunted by a person with a gun who aimed to kill you. I'm very curious to know.
Because many of the people who have been in that situation come out of it very against guns. And yes, they call for banning such weapons, because they see what they did to their friends' bodies and their own minds, and they can't comprehend why you need it for anything at all except for killing people. Others go in the opposite direction and start stockpiling an arsenal because they will never feel safe again. So if we call these reactions "sick gun culture", we must note that the catalyst for these extreme positions (no guns / all the guns) are mass shootings themselves.
> That is not what I said. I know of no shootings at rural schools off of the top of my head.
https://voanews.com/a/mass-school-shootings-mostly-in-small-...
Uvalde is a town of 15k people in a red state with a high percentage of gun owners and a strong culture of gun ownership. And yet, a psycho mowed down children at a school, the police with guns and all the firepower in the world did nothing except hold parents back.> But what are "common sense gun reform laws"?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-support...
Red flag laws, increased mental health support, closing loopholes on background checks, requiring permits, requiring training, banning the sale of high capacity magazines, banning the sale of assault-style weapons. These ar...
The policy is about pretecting a TRADEMARK, and the local law of the land or norms wrt personal arms is as irrelevant to a TRADEMARK as the local norms on weed or drinking on sundays or public dress codes.
A property owner or an event organizer has a say in things like that, not a trademark copyright document.
As I said already, right there, but I guess I'll repeat, because that isn't stupid: An event organizer could stipulate a condition like that if they wanted, subject to local laws allowing. A property owner could stipulate a condition like that, subject to local laws allowing.
The Rust Foundation is not necessarily either of those entities, and so has just no business at all even expressing an opinion on things that are none of their business.
And even in cases where they might be the event organizer, a trademark copyright has no relationship one way or another with such things as what is essentially a dress code or a local facility security measure or behavior standard. They can absolutely say that guns are not allowed at any events they happen to host, the same as they can say that shoes and shirts are required.
But none of that has any place in the document laying out terms protecting the use of a trademark.
Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is.
It seems to me that an organization doesn't want their brand being associated with certain kinds of behavior. I realize you may want to engage in that behavior, but doesn't the brand have the right to control their logo?
Edit: You heavily edited your comment after I had already replied to it, which is tricky. You should probably have written a new post if you had more to say.
> Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is.
I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event. For starters, we're talking about behaviors rather than identities. It's okay to be a gun owner, just like it's okay to be black, gay, or Christian. No one is trying to restrict any of those identities.
What we're talking about here is that Rust doesn't want their brand and logo associated with certain behaviors. Namely, the behavior of bringing a gun to a technical meetup. You may feel that's an overreach, sure. But is it legal? Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment?
If it's not legal in certain jurisdictions, can't they still restrict the use of their logo in those jurisdictions? If they can't, doesn't that mean all brands have lost all control of their IP in those jurisdictions?
Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document.
And as I've repeated mutiple times now, an event organizer or a property owner are perfectly able to set such limits (assuming local laws allow). That could even be the foundation if they happen to be the ones hosting some event.
I don't know why you keep ignoring that yet expect to be taken seriously as having any sort of point.
However, I don't see how the right of physical property owners to set limits on the use of their property restricts the rights of IP owners to set limits on the use of their property. You haven't made the connection between the two. If you feel you've made that point clearly, I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. You'll have to reframe your argument instead of simply repeating it. I'm not picking up what you're putting down.
> Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document.
This is where we disagree. I think it is squarely within the scope of trademark law, as long as it complies with the First Amendment, including fair use. That's what "ownership" means.
If anyone were allowed to use any mark they want at any event they want, and the rights holder has no say over that, then what "rights" do they actually have? What does trademark actually mean?
Let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose you wanted to host a conference about all things Disney. You brand your conference with Disney logos, Disney word marks, and Disney characters. You advertise the event and charge money to attend.
However, this Disney conference is also a satanic blood orgy.
Does Disney have the right to restrict the conference from using their logo? Satanic blood orgies are allowed, the venue has okayed it, and it's allowed in the state. The satanic blood orgy aspect is legal and allowed.
Doesn't Disney still have the right to send a cease-and-desist letter to the conference?
If they don't, can you please explain how trademarks work in your worldview?
Furthermore, if what you say is true, then what is the legal basis for all of these artists restricting at which events their songs can be played:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/28/all-t...
It seems to me that a trademark, such as the Rust logo, should have more protection than a copyright of a song. So why can't Rust restrict the use of its logo based on the character of a gathering, while musicians can restrict the playing of their songs based on the character of those gatherings in the linked article?
I find your attempted dichotomy between "identities" and "behaviors" unpersuasive.
"Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"?
Yeah, no.
And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things.
> Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment?
Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness, and become even less likely to use Rust for anything than I was before (the probability of that was already extremely low, btw, for actual technical reasons rather than political virtue signaling, but a discussion of that would not be on-topic for this thread).
Well, aside from the fact that being black has little to do with wearing corn rows, and being gay has little to do with kissing (I'll grant that praying is tightly coupled to being Christian), I think it's fine for an IP holder to set a dress code, and to prohibit what kind of sexual activity can be endorsed using their IP. That's their right. Doesn't Disney get to say "no" to strip clubs who want to hold Disney nights, with official Disney logos and everything? The legal basis for them saying no to that is trademark law, which itself is rooted in the US Constitution.
The praying thing would be a can of worms because of how religion works in our country, we'd have to talk about a more specific hypothetical for that to be a vehicle for productive discussion.
> And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things.
Okay, so you agree with me that the original poster was saying that the problem was with the legal vehicle used to enforce this policy. That poster made it seem that my inference was silly and inexplicable random nonsense, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who took it that way.
But that still doesn't clear up if they can't use trademark for this purpose, and nothing you've said in your post really addresses that. Also there is a question of whether or not Rust should be able to restrict whether or not firearms are allowed at events aspiring to strongly associate themselves with Rust, specifically by using their trademarked logo.
>> Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? > Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness
Great! So we are in agreement. But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons? I understand that you think it's the wrong use of trademark (and others have said that maybe a separate venue or event license is more appropriate), but that still doesn't mean that trademark can't be used like this. That is not clear to me.
Either way, this seems like the best outcome, where everyone exercises their free speech rights, and right to association, while maintaining ownership rights. Rust gets to build a community they want, you get to not associate with them if you so choose, you and I are free to use whatever language we want, you and I are free to laugh at anyone we want, and the only thing you can't do is hold an event with Rust IP and allow people to bring their guns. You are still free to hold an event and invite people to bring their guns, but you won't be allowed to use the Rust IP. A small price to pay for freedom and liberty.
I "asserted" nothing of the sort. In fact I said exactly the opposite. Go back and read the part where I said "Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness...".
> I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things.
What did you mean by this if not that trademark cannot be used to enforce where/when/how a trademark is used? Rust wants to do exactly that and you say they have no business doing so under trademark law. Can you please clarify? Because your statements seem contradictory.
I meant exactly what I said -- that putting this in a trademark document is a bad idea. That is not me "stating the opposite" in any sense.
You do understand that there are many things that are legal but which are nonetheless bad ideas, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Actually, I think you do understand that, and are basically just trolling at this point.
We're done here.
Might be this https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1ErZlwz9bbSI43dNo-rgQ...
The Rust Foundation goes to war against people using the word “Rust” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35547358 - April 2023 (22 comments)
Rust Is Dead to Me - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35535285 - April 2023 (83 comments)
Ask HN: How bad is the current draft trademark policy of the Rust Foundation? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35526453 - April 2023 (10 comments)
Rust Foundation restricts usage of word “Rust” and logos - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35510987 - April 2023 (21 comments)
---------------------------------------
In some ways this is a good thing - organizations should take steps to develop better brand credibility. Sometimes I just want to know if something is an official package/event/documentation/account/etc. I want to be able to go to a blog post, see an image and know that's an official Rust affiliated account without having to memorize names or read about someone's profile history.
The panic about people being afraid of being sued for just mentioning rust seems farfetched. The policy outlines some pretty liberal fair-use, and would probably only take legal action in extreme cases.
Of course, I doubt this is going to go over well. I doubt people will take the time to understand how to use the trademarks correctly and it'll lead to a situation where nobody follows it so the whole excercise in credibility will be pointless.
Back in the day the Ada people had a reputation for being very "controlling", but they didn't stop the Gnat people naming their company "Ada Core Technologies", and they didn't stop the adahome.com people using that domain name or writing "Ada Home: The Web Site for Ada" in big letters on top of their webpage.
I don't think that caused any serious problems.
It's certainly a different approach - that's the big problem, people aren't used to this kind of approach.
I just watched a video where someone, in response to the policy of not having 'rust' in a crate name, brought up how npm allows 'node', and golang allows 'go' in their package names. And those were mistakes, way more for npm, which they eventually kind of fixed with namespaces. And cargo is not getting namespaces, in fact the whole package system is pretty but that's a separate thing.
My bet is that this whole is going to be a disaster, but maybe this is a baby step for more professionalism for future projects to learn from - even if it's about what not to do.
This is because the Rust trademark policy mentions firearms for some reason. Some people who are used to the Linux trademark policy find this bizarre and off-putting.
I read that bit! I can explain it to you!
Yes, the Rust trademark policy _draft_ mentions firearms once. It's because they won't endorse an event that allows attendees to carry firearms.
They essentially turned their supposed trademark policy into a code of conduct, which would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
In the case of this particular trademark policy, it's because they won't endorse an event that allows attendees to carry firearms. They consider the use/display of their marks in a way that suggests they endorsed an event when they did not to be an infringement of their trademark. They provide a basic set of conditions that should be met "at minimum" in order for them to endorse an event and grant the use of the marks. One of those conditions is that the event prohibits the carrying of firearms by attendees.
Specifically if the toolchain developers and users sent the foundation email to spam and moved on with their lives as if this group didn't exist, does anything change?
Found this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35582766 which helped a little
Furthermore, the Project has significant representation on the Foundation board. The Foundation cannot just do whatever they want, against the project.
This policy was written by several Project members, in conjunction with the Foundation legal. So…
The "this is what you get if you ask lawyers for a trademark policy and don't pay enough attention to what you get back" model seems closer.
This post by a former nodejs decision-maker provides some evidence for that:
https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/12lb0am/can_someone_e...
> I'm not saying heads should roll. I'm saying someone needs to take the wheel.
If no one is at the wheel, Rust is unsafe at any speed.
This is not lawyers this is Karens.
Even the most worthless trademark lawyer would never add in unnecessary statements like banning guns at Rust-backed conferences.
The problem is just what kinds of outlandish things they thought it was within their right to control. They still think that even after "recieving comment", and that is a problem.
Surely the Rust Foundation doesn't insist that guns be hackable and error prone by being written in java or c or anything but the most reliable language available?
(I don't own any guns, and if I did I would want it to be as dumb as a hammer not something controlled by software, so I'm neither gun-nut nor gun-control-nut, and this post is only serious about the point not the hypothetical used to illustrate the point.)