The Rust Foundation recently presented a draft restatement of the rules for using its wordmark and figurative mark, sparking controversy among the community. Many have criticized the guidelines for being too strict and not in the interest of the community. It is important to note that the Rust Foundation is distinct from the Rust project, which consists of volunteers working to advance the programming language and ecosystem.
However, some significant changes have occurred since the Rust project’s early days as an open source project from Mozilla. When Mozilla laid off a quarter of its workforce, which included almost all Rust contributors, the Rust Foundation was established to provide legal and financial support to the project. The foundation owns the trademark rights inherited from Mozilla, which are necessary for the project’s protection.
Despite the outrage from some community members, the guidelines are still open for review and feedback from the community. The proposed wording is intended to protect the Rust brand from being registered as a trademark by another company and to ensure the appropriate usage of its trademarks. The guidelines aim to clarify the boundaries of the Rust brand, which is becoming increasingly large and pervasive.
However, some community members have encountered conflicts between the new guidelines and their existing projects. For example, the previous usage guidelines allowed the liberal use of the Rust logo for meetups and user groups, but the new guidelines prohibit the use of the term “Rust” in domain names. This restriction creates confusion and conflict within the community.
Additionally, some guidelines are too strict and ambitious. For example, the proposed guidelines require blog articles to include a disclaimer at the beginning, which creates difficulties for bloggers. There is a need for nuance and context to distinguish between private blogs and publishers when it comes to applying the guidelines.
Nonetheless, the Rust Foundation is openly seeking feedback from the community to improve the guidelines. It is necessary to ensure that the guidelines strike the right balance between protecting the Rust brand and not hindering the community’s ability to use and promote it. The feedback form is available for anyone who wishes to contribute to the discussion.
The Rust Foundation acknowledges that the communication around the topic was poor and needs revision. However, the project directors and members of the Rust Trademark Working Group are aware of this issue and are working to improve their communication. Hopefully, with community feedback and revision, the Rust Foundation can create a guideline that works for everyone.
