Rust Is Dead to Me(gavinhoward.com)
gavinhoward.com
Rust Is Dead to Me
https://gavinhoward.com/2023/04/rust-is-dead-to-me/
90 comments
Wrong lede, IMHO.
The article starts with the desire to attend Rust conferences while strapped with firepower. Unfortunately, that's a loaded (ha) topic, which I'd guess will alienate maybe half the readers of the article, before they learn that there's things in the draft that do bother them...
Just flipping around the draft, I see things like this:
> 5.1.2 Websites
> You may use the Word Marks and Logos, but not the Trade Dress, on your webpage to show your support for the Project as long as:
I think anyone will use these terms and senses of "Rust", "Cargo", and "Clippy" on Web pages for most whatever purposes they want, not only to "show [their] support for the Project".
There's more in the draft like that.
At first glance, this Rust Trademark Policy looks like it could function like a treaty amongst a handful of megacorps. It could also be used to carve out of a fiefdom.
Rust is clearly designed for systems programmers. Systems programmers learn to be savvy about standards and vendor dependencies, and (when they have a choice) to weigh what they invest in.
Personally, I'm all for open standards, building solid systems, and "defending the Internet". I don't yet know what to make of this document.
The article starts with the desire to attend Rust conferences while strapped with firepower. Unfortunately, that's a loaded (ha) topic, which I'd guess will alienate maybe half the readers of the article, before they learn that there's things in the draft that do bother them...
Just flipping around the draft, I see things like this:
> 5.1.2 Websites
> You may use the Word Marks and Logos, but not the Trade Dress, on your webpage to show your support for the Project as long as:
I think anyone will use these terms and senses of "Rust", "Cargo", and "Clippy" on Web pages for most whatever purposes they want, not only to "show [their] support for the Project".
There's more in the draft like that.
At first glance, this Rust Trademark Policy looks like it could function like a treaty amongst a handful of megacorps. It could also be used to carve out of a fiefdom.
Rust is clearly designed for systems programmers. Systems programmers learn to be savvy about standards and vendor dependencies, and (when they have a choice) to weigh what they invest in.
Personally, I'm all for open standards, building solid systems, and "defending the Internet". I don't yet know what to make of this document.
See also:
Java logo and mark guidelines (also cf. javascript/ECMAScript, mysql): https://www.oracle.com/legal/trademarks.html https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/java-licensing-logo-guide...
Google's attempt to trademark Go: https://trademarks.justia.com/881/00/go-88100955.html
Python trademark usage guidelines: https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
Perl trademark usage guidelines: https://www.perlfoundation.org/trademarks.html
Ruby is a counterexample!: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/logo/
PHP seems to be a counterexample!: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/logo/
PostgreSQL: https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/trademarks/
Linux: https://lmi.linuxfoundation.org/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage
there are many more, but you get the idea
I know a couple streamers/youtubers have made a big fuss about this (idk about actual developer sentiment), but I don't see why this situation is anything exceptional or to be worried about.
Java logo and mark guidelines (also cf. javascript/ECMAScript, mysql): https://www.oracle.com/legal/trademarks.html https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/java-licensing-logo-guide...
Google's attempt to trademark Go: https://trademarks.justia.com/881/00/go-88100955.html
Python trademark usage guidelines: https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
Perl trademark usage guidelines: https://www.perlfoundation.org/trademarks.html
Ruby is a counterexample!: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/logo/
PHP seems to be a counterexample!: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/logo/
PostgreSQL: https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/trademarks/
Linux: https://lmi.linuxfoundation.org/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage
there are many more, but you get the idea
I know a couple streamers/youtubers have made a big fuss about this (idk about actual developer sentiment), but I don't see why this situation is anything exceptional or to be worried about.
A thing can be both common and unreasonable at the same time.
But one wonders: the same criticisms can be levied at these other cases, yet one finds that googling about controversies regarding them (well except Oracle) turns up little. Considering how well-established these are, one would expect that if trademarking it were truly unreasonable, we'd see a similar argument already.
The more obvious reason is that you have a couple loud voices who don't know what they're talking about and see that these actions actually either do little harm or even benefit the community (regarding the latter, e.g. making it obvious when a couple blessed and vetted, officially supported high-quality resources are being provided).
The more obvious reason is that you have a couple loud voices who don't know what they're talking about and see that these actions actually either do little harm or even benefit the community (regarding the latter, e.g. making it obvious when a couple blessed and vetted, officially supported high-quality resources are being provided).
Am I the only one that feels a lot of parallels between Rust's trademark policy and Mozilla's trademark policies in general? IIRC the Mozilla Public License is very restrictive on usage of logos, branding, etc. to the point where patching software to run on your OS would violate it[1].
So I am not too surprised by what Rust has been doing. I definitely don't like it, but whatever, there's enough fights out there to choose from, and Rust's trademark policy is not one I'm picking.
[1] https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86
So I am not too surprised by what Rust has been doing. I definitely don't like it, but whatever, there's enough fights out there to choose from, and Rust's trademark policy is not one I'm picking.
[1] https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86
Pale Moon has no relation to Mozilla at all; other than being a fork of Firefox of course. It's a pretty small niche project, and I found the Pale Moon people in general to be rather, ehm, off-putting, to put it nicely, and that Tobin guy who created the issue particularly unpleasant (IIRC he managed to get banned from Pale Moon).
Either way, I think the situations are a bit different; naming libraries "$langname-foo" or variations thereof is common in many languages; and I don't think anyone is really confused by this. Attempting to ban the usage of $langname in package and domain names is unheard of AFAIK. Ruby on Rails, godoc.org, gobyexample.com, and many others would be disallowed under this policy.
And as much as I disagree with the author's stance on guns, putting it in a Trademark policy seems ... weird.
Either way, I think the situations are a bit different; naming libraries "$langname-foo" or variations thereof is common in many languages; and I don't think anyone is really confused by this. Attempting to ban the usage of $langname in package and domain names is unheard of AFAIK. Ruby on Rails, godoc.org, gobyexample.com, and many others would be disallowed under this policy.
And as much as I disagree with the author's stance on guns, putting it in a Trademark policy seems ... weird.
Mozilla isn't a language. Rust isn't an application.
The below language in the draft seems to indicate that the R@$! foundation will have a lock on all paid training courses, meaning professional trainers will need to get a license agreement to operate (presumably with a fee of some kind). Personally, I think we should all start using R@$! in place of the trademark, until this debacle is dead and buried.
"I am running an event for which I am charging attendees for tickets. Can I use the Rust Logo on my promotional materials?
If your event is for-profit, you will need approval to use the Rust name or Logo. If you are simply covering costs and the event is non-profit, you may use the Rust name or Logo as long as it is clear that the event is not endorsed by the Rust Foundation. You are free to use Ferris the crab without permission."
"I am running an event for which I am charging attendees for tickets. Can I use the Rust Logo on my promotional materials?
If your event is for-profit, you will need approval to use the Rust name or Logo. If you are simply covering costs and the event is non-profit, you may use the Rust name or Logo as long as it is clear that the event is not endorsed by the Rust Foundation. You are free to use Ferris the crab without permission."
Not being a lawyer I can only hope that this is simply embarassing and unenforceable. The logo, maybe, but the name? I don't see how anyone can prevent anyone else from simply referring to them by their factual name. It's absurd. Which makes it embarassing and enlightening that they try.
A quick google: "simply because the use of another’s trademark is unauthorized by the trademark owner does not make it an infringing use" https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications...
So even the logo doesn't grant quite that level of control.
Basically someone needs to get over themselves.
A quick google: "simply because the use of another’s trademark is unauthorized by the trademark owner does not make it an infringing use" https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications...
So even the logo doesn't grant quite that level of control.
Basically someone needs to get over themselves.
Weird gun moans aside, what about the rest of it? I'm not familiar with usual T&C's for this kind of software foundations, but they seem excessive. Can't use the word "rust" in a conference name, product name, can't sell swag... I mean, I get they need to protect the name and want some kind of exclusive stewardship but this seems OTT for an open source software project. Or am I wrong?
"You may make promotional goods for free giveaway at open source conferences and events provided that the goods are in good taste and compatible with the values of the Project."
Wow. "Good taste". No rusty dildoes?
Wow. "Good taste". No rusty dildoes?
USA Circus
Please don't add nationalistic flamewar hell on top of other flamewar hell. It only makes things worse.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Honestly, if you think it’s weird not to allow you to have your firearm in a conference, I think you should think twice about it.
If it’s a dangerous place, why do you even go? And if it’s not, why the hell would you even need an firearm?
I don’t care if you have a permit or not, just the mentality of “I’m going to defend my wife and myself” sounds nuts to anyone not in the states.
IMHO that was the only statement from the rust foundation that I could relate to: it makes feel safer knowing that people like you won’t be able to bring guns to these events.
If it’s a dangerous place, why do you even go? And if it’s not, why the hell would you even need an firearm?
I don’t care if you have a permit or not, just the mentality of “I’m going to defend my wife and myself” sounds nuts to anyone not in the states.
IMHO that was the only statement from the rust foundation that I could relate to: it makes feel safer knowing that people like you won’t be able to bring guns to these events.
> I don’t care if you have a permit or not, just the mentality of “I’m going to defend my wife and myself” sounds nuts to anyone not in the states.
Sounds absolutely batshit insane to many of us in the states too.
Sounds absolutely batshit insane to many of us in the states too.
It does, but that's almost an irrelevant distraction from the consistent theme of Rust demanding things he asserts they have no right to. That is the point being made, not anything about guns.
In almost every example here you could decide that what Rust is saying is not unreasonable.
But in almost every case you could just as easily come to the conclusion he does, because his logic does hold.
(I don't mean the defend my wife & kids from terrorists at the software conference stuff is logical, we can agree that that is goofy, and that any event organizer or property owner probably (not a lawyer) has the same right to say that as they have to say "no shoes no shirt no service". But even then, that right is the event organizer's and the property owners, not the Rust foundation's unless they happen to directly be the one's throwing the event.
I would say what Rust is trying to do is more normal than reasonable. It's not uncommon at all, but that doesn't absolve it of critique.
And his point about intent is valid. The fact it's a draft and the purpose of a draft is exactly to discover objections like these, and may be revised before it's ratified, doesn't change what they want, which tells you the direction of all future updates, and the bias when judging any disputes.
Without that one wacky element which has nothing to do with Rust anyway (any more than any other wacky belief like in gods), I see no problem with this assertion of the character of whoever contributed to and approves of this draft, based on this consistently themed collection of points.
In almost every example here you could decide that what Rust is saying is not unreasonable.
But in almost every case you could just as easily come to the conclusion he does, because his logic does hold.
(I don't mean the defend my wife & kids from terrorists at the software conference stuff is logical, we can agree that that is goofy, and that any event organizer or property owner probably (not a lawyer) has the same right to say that as they have to say "no shoes no shirt no service". But even then, that right is the event organizer's and the property owners, not the Rust foundation's unless they happen to directly be the one's throwing the event.
I would say what Rust is trying to do is more normal than reasonable. It's not uncommon at all, but that doesn't absolve it of critique.
And his point about intent is valid. The fact it's a draft and the purpose of a draft is exactly to discover objections like these, and may be revised before it's ratified, doesn't change what they want, which tells you the direction of all future updates, and the bias when judging any disputes.
Without that one wacky element which has nothing to do with Rust anyway (any more than any other wacky belief like in gods), I see no problem with this assertion of the character of whoever contributed to and approves of this draft, based on this consistently themed collection of points.
> if you think it’s weird not to allow you to have your firearm in a conference, I think you should think twice about it.
This means you can't legally have a conference in the state of Georgia on any public property (including universities). The state of Georgia requires venue and event organizers to allow firearms in public, state owned, or university locations.
We recently had Music Midtown, one our biggest music festivals with decades of rich history and major headliners, permanently shutter because they tried to prohibit guns and got sued.
These rules have unintended consequences. It's cute to try to be political, but this just excludes people.
This means you can't legally have a conference in the state of Georgia on any public property (including universities). The state of Georgia requires venue and event organizers to allow firearms in public, state owned, or university locations.
We recently had Music Midtown, one our biggest music festivals with decades of rich history and major headliners, permanently shutter because they tried to prohibit guns and got sued.
These rules have unintended consequences. It's cute to try to be political, but this just excludes people.
Duly noted. I won't ever host any conference on public property in Georgia.
If you want to bring a weapon to my conference, you are not welcome.
If you want to bring a weapon to my conference, you are not welcome.
Do you realize that they want to bring a gun mostly because you don't want them to? By speaking the words "guns not invited" into the universe, you draw an intense desire from many gun advocates to respond. It's just polarization on one side leading to more polarization on the other side. The more one party pushes, the more the other pushes back. It's a self-amplifying feedback loop.
The only reason they want to do any of this is because their needs (in an abstract sense) are not being met. Because the system is inadequate at addressing everyone's needs, regardless of belief or party affiliation.
This is mimetic tribalism, where the players think that their tribe can better meet their needs and insecurities. Guns aren't even what this is about.
In any case, I'm annoyed that the Rust Foundation finds it worth their time to play these games.
The only reason they want to do any of this is because their needs (in an abstract sense) are not being met. Because the system is inadequate at addressing everyone's needs, regardless of belief or party affiliation.
This is mimetic tribalism, where the players think that their tribe can better meet their needs and insecurities. Guns aren't even what this is about.
In any case, I'm annoyed that the Rust Foundation finds it worth their time to play these games.
This isn't tribalism. I don't want people at a conference I organize to feel unsafe, or worse to be put in actual risk due to the unnecessary presence of firearms that have no reason to be there.
Guns go off unintentionally. People react before properly assessing a situation. Someone dead, on the floor, riddled with bullets is not an acceptable outcome no matter the situation that led up to it. Not in any event I organize.
If you feel unsafe because you can't bring your gun, then don't come. You're not welcome.
Guns go off unintentionally. People react before properly assessing a situation. Someone dead, on the floor, riddled with bullets is not an acceptable outcome no matter the situation that led up to it. Not in any event I organize.
If you feel unsafe because you can't bring your gun, then don't come. You're not welcome.
Someone that wants to bring a gun with an intention to hurt people is going to bring one anyway. There's no stopping that.
By visibly signalling "no guns", you're just drawing attention to yourself.
Nobody was going to bring a gun to your event. Those kinds of people likely aren't interested in your event to begin with as it's a different demographic.
By advertising that guns aren't welcome, you just created drama and an intense desire for people that were never interested in the first place to suddenly find themselves involved and to want to deliberately break your rules.
You just created a situation.
In any case, I use Rust for most of my engineering work these days. I just want to have Rust conferences and meetups in my home town of Atlanta. I don't want drama.
By visibly signalling "no guns", you're just drawing attention to yourself.
Nobody was going to bring a gun to your event. Those kinds of people likely aren't interested in your event to begin with as it's a different demographic.
By advertising that guns aren't welcome, you just created drama and an intense desire for people that were never interested in the first place to suddenly find themselves involved and to want to deliberately break your rules.
You just created a situation.
In any case, I use Rust for most of my engineering work these days. I just want to have Rust conferences and meetups in my home town of Atlanta. I don't want drama.
> By advertising that guns aren't welcome, you just created drama and an intense desire for people that were never interested in the first place to suddenly find themselves involved and to want to deliberately break your rules.
> You just created a situation.
That sounds borderline victim blaming.
Someone decides that their conference is safer without guns, advertises to not bring guns as a requirement for entrance and now it's their fault for creating a situation. It doesn't make sense. Because the opposite: ban guns and don't advertise it, would just create another situation when someone came with a gun...
The gun nuts create a situation, they can choose to not bring a gun or not go to the event, they choose to be overly dramatic about it or not.
> You just created a situation.
That sounds borderline victim blaming.
Someone decides that their conference is safer without guns, advertises to not bring guns as a requirement for entrance and now it's their fault for creating a situation. It doesn't make sense. Because the opposite: ban guns and don't advertise it, would just create another situation when someone came with a gun...
The gun nuts create a situation, they can choose to not bring a gun or not go to the event, they choose to be overly dramatic about it or not.
As opposed to "my gun or your IT ecosystem is dead to me" which is so not creating drama over unrelated things ? /s
What other basic right of agency should it be ok for you to control?
You're quite hung up on guns but it's not about guns it's about anything that's none of your business.
I think religion and religious thinking and ideas are more dangerous than any guns. Let's count the bodies and the misery if you th8nk that was a silly statement. Do I get to thow an event about a software programming language and have an AI scan everyone's internet footprint and exclude anyone that my AI determines is in any way religious? Or just assume we have thought scanning tech that can just show it as directly as frisking someone for a gun. Do I get to do that?
You're quite hung up on guns but it's not about guns it's about anything that's none of your business.
I think religion and religious thinking and ideas are more dangerous than any guns. Let's count the bodies and the misery if you th8nk that was a silly statement. Do I get to thow an event about a software programming language and have an AI scan everyone's internet footprint and exclude anyone that my AI determines is in any way religious? Or just assume we have thought scanning tech that can just show it as directly as frisking someone for a gun. Do I get to do that?
I hate religion as much as the next person and one can argue about the number of deaths that religion has caused, but a religious person attending a convention is unlikely to directly cause other convention goers to die during the convention. Unless armed with weapon such as a gun. And if they suddenly start preaching and converting you can escort them safely off the premises.
So potential is good enough justification?
Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.
I suppose it must be reasonable to bar anyone who knows how to lock doors and start fires, or mix cleaning supplies. Assume we had an equivant way to scan for it like a metal detector or a frisking.
Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.
I suppose it must be reasonable to bar anyone who knows how to lock doors and start fires, or mix cleaning supplies. Assume we had an equivant way to scan for it like a metal detector or a frisking.
> So potential is good enough justification?
If you disagree that potential is a good enough justification, would you agree that private citizens should be able to own nuclear bombs? If not, why? If you do think citizens owning nuclear bombs is reasonable, I don't think we will find common ground.
> Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.
Try attending a conference openly carrying a bucket of arsenic or a bottle of anthrax. Or just a jerrycan with gasoline and some matches. Or wearing a bomb vest and wielding a machete. I like to imagine you will be sent away. It's not like guns are unfairly targeted here.
When those other methods of murdering people are as common in the death-statistics as firearms (such as the "killing spree by a muscular martial artist" one you propose), perhaps we should worry about them more. But they are not, so banning guns is the most logical step to increase safety.
If you disagree that potential is a good enough justification, would you agree that private citizens should be able to own nuclear bombs? If not, why? If you do think citizens owning nuclear bombs is reasonable, I don't think we will find common ground.
> Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.
Try attending a conference openly carrying a bucket of arsenic or a bottle of anthrax. Or just a jerrycan with gasoline and some matches. Or wearing a bomb vest and wielding a machete. I like to imagine you will be sent away. It's not like guns are unfairly targeted here.
When those other methods of murdering people are as common in the death-statistics as firearms (such as the "killing spree by a muscular martial artist" one you propose), perhaps we should worry about them more. But they are not, so banning guns is the most logical step to increase safety.
No matter how many times you remove the top of any list, there is still a top of the list. It accomplishes nothing.
True, carrying a pail of nerve gas, or even merely gasoline, somewhere out of context will be prevented generally for it's mere potential, but there are several things about that:
It was a remarkable out of context event, not someone merely existing as they do all day every day, where their weapon is a part of them like their wallet or their knowledge.
You don't have to carry anything large that is detectable without a rather invasive search which you cannot perform outside of maybe North Korea.
You don't have to carry anything at all. The danger is all in the will and abilities of any individual.
Saying nuclear bomb is a form of Godwin's law. Merely saying it at all exposes that one is not arguing from meaningful thought or data but pure hyperbole and emotion.
True, carrying a pail of nerve gas, or even merely gasoline, somewhere out of context will be prevented generally for it's mere potential, but there are several things about that:
It was a remarkable out of context event, not someone merely existing as they do all day every day, where their weapon is a part of them like their wallet or their knowledge.
You don't have to carry anything large that is detectable without a rather invasive search which you cannot perform outside of maybe North Korea.
You don't have to carry anything at all. The danger is all in the will and abilities of any individual.
Saying nuclear bomb is a form of Godwin's law. Merely saying it at all exposes that one is not arguing from meaningful thought or data but pure hyperbole and emotion.
I don't really care about guns at all, but I don't mind those that have opinions on either side of the argument. I prefer those without strong opinions one way or the other, because I care more about finding fun things in common.
I really think the Rust Foundation is acting childish. They should be the bigger party. They're literally rubbing this issue in everyone's face for no reason, and if you read the blog posts or watch the videos - this isn't even limited to guns. They're preventing all sorts of Rust activities. You can't have a "Rust and Anime" meetup or a "Rust Robotics" meetup.
I'm pretty sure from a legal standpoint the Rust Foundation has just prevented Rust meetups on the Georgia Tech campus. That's really smooth as we've had meetups there up to this point.
I really think the Rust Foundation is acting childish. They should be the bigger party. They're literally rubbing this issue in everyone's face for no reason, and if you read the blog posts or watch the videos - this isn't even limited to guns. They're preventing all sorts of Rust activities. You can't have a "Rust and Anime" meetup or a "Rust Robotics" meetup.
I'm pretty sure from a legal standpoint the Rust Foundation has just prevented Rust meetups on the Georgia Tech campus. That's really smooth as we've had meetups there up to this point.
False equivalency: guns kill people. no-guns doesn't. I'm with life.
So, people who don't want guns around them, kids, drunks, are the ones at fault ?
There's no way in hell I'd ever go to an event where people are allowed to carry firearms. What the fuck? People with guns make any place unsafe, not safer.
That's cool, you don't have to attend. The weird part is having a long list of intrusive requirements for even just running a small meetup that uses the Rust trademark. Same with the bizarre swag rules and code of conduct requirement. The Rust Foundation should respect diversity and let organizers set rules appropriate for their local culture and environment, rather than trying to prescribe one size fits all policies by using trademark law as a bludgeon.
No guns is not intrusive, it’s sane. Everywhere in the world.
The comment right below yours describes how this effectively bans events on public property in Georgia, because they passed a law to address this precise issue. Other states may have similar laws. Was the Rust Foundation even aware of this? Regardless, this is the expected outcome when top-down intrusive decision making fails to account for regional and cultural diversity.
Great, then no Rust events for Georgia. Good riddance.
If a state goes above and beyond to force guns in unrelated events, then good for the Rust foundation to go above and beyond on keeping their attendees safe.
I have no idea what mental gymnastics you make to think forcing event organizations to allow guns is not intrusive but the opposite is.
If a state goes above and beyond to force guns in unrelated events, then good for the Rust foundation to go above and beyond on keeping their attendees safe.
I have no idea what mental gymnastics you make to think forcing event organizations to allow guns is not intrusive but the opposite is.
Uninteresting, but irrellevant, because what does that have to do with copyrighting a trademark?
> If it’s a dangerous place, why do you even go? And if it’s not, why the bell would you need an firearm?
Have you considered the non-black-and-white possibility that it's unknown whether danger will present itself at the conference? No one ever went to a school or just about anywhere else outside a war zone expecting to get shot up or otherwise attacked and possibly murdered, and yet . . . .
Have you considered the non-black-and-white possibility that it's unknown whether danger will present itself at the conference? No one ever went to a school or just about anywhere else outside a war zone expecting to get shot up or otherwise attacked and possibly murdered, and yet . . . .
[deleted]
The danger is well known, not unknown: it's people with guns.
> The danger is well known, not unknown: it's people with guns.
well, apparently not well known to you. The danger is criminals with guns. Law-abiding people carry guns everyday and demonstrably present no significant additional threat to the public. The thesis that law-abiding people could suddenly become dangerous gun criminals at a Rust event simply because they possess a firearm seems unsupportable.
Apparently the Rust Foundation wants us to accept the premise that lawfully armed people are intrinsically dangerous to fellow Rust enthusiasts, doubly so if they dissent.
I’d like to know what is it about Rust that makes lawful behavior and public dissent over Rust foundation dicta so hazardous...? Can someone address this directly?
well, apparently not well known to you. The danger is criminals with guns. Law-abiding people carry guns everyday and demonstrably present no significant additional threat to the public. The thesis that law-abiding people could suddenly become dangerous gun criminals at a Rust event simply because they possess a firearm seems unsupportable.
Apparently the Rust Foundation wants us to accept the premise that lawfully armed people are intrinsically dangerous to fellow Rust enthusiasts, doubly so if they dissent.
I’d like to know what is it about Rust that makes lawful behavior and public dissent over Rust foundation dicta so hazardous...? Can someone address this directly?
Dude would be praying to all gods known and unknown that there's a law-abiding person with a gun around to save their ass if someone who doesn't give a single flying fuck about the conference's gun rules shows up to shoot the place up, someone who could respond before the police finally show up also armed with guns but too late to do anything but drag their dead corpse out.
This is yet another example of Rust people forcing their political messages on people. Most techies are progressive to the point of cringe and have no understanding of the issues they are pontificating about.
if someone has a legal right to carry a weapon in their state do not demand that right be taken away for a frivolous reason
Guns have no place at a programming language conference, it's as simple as that, it's not about imposing politics.
I'm sure they don't care if attendees carry weapons outside of the conference, they're not saying gun owners are not licensed to use rust or anything.
I'm sure they don't care if attendees carry weapons outside of the conference, they're not saying gun owners are not licensed to use rust or anything.
> Guns have no place at a programming language conference
I don't have anything against a rule about not carrying weapons... but why mention it in a trademark draft?
I am sure we both can think about a lot of things that "have no place at a programming language conference", but surprisingly these are not included in that draft. Why?
I don't have anything against a rule about not carrying weapons... but why mention it in a trademark draft?
I am sure we both can think about a lot of things that "have no place at a programming language conference", but surprisingly these are not included in that draft. Why?
> a lot of things that "have no place at a programming language conference", but surprisingly these are not included in that draft. Why?
Rly. Why should petty tyranny or totalitarianism have a seat at a programming language conference?
Rly. Why should petty tyranny or totalitarianism have a seat at a programming language conference?
“It’s not politics, just everyone should think the same as me because I am right.”
What place do guns have in a document about protecting a trademark?
How is "I don't want to be shot during a programming convention" a frivolous reason?
Conferences typically don’t have metal detectors and bag search. If someone wants to shoot you at a conference nothing stands in their way. By stopping a legal gun carry you are achieving nothing much more than punishing someone for exercising a right you don’t like
,,I have a concealed carry permit''
This is crazy, as a European who lived in a peaceful world all my life I believe it should be illegal to conceal any deadly weapon. A person who does that is danger to everybody.
I understand the right for people protecting their own home and being able to protest violently against their government in a need, but going to a conference is none of these.
There are pepper sprays that are good for self defence without being able to kill people, why not use those?
This is crazy, as a European who lived in a peaceful world all my life I believe it should be illegal to conceal any deadly weapon. A person who does that is danger to everybody.
I understand the right for people protecting their own home and being able to protest violently against their government in a need, but going to a conference is none of these.
There are pepper sprays that are good for self defence without being able to kill people, why not use those?
Pepper spray is not guaranteed to work. Or work in time. Unless you hit their eyes directly, it’s an annoyance in the moment.
Of course, guns have similar drawbacks. Adrenaline is fascinating stuff.
Of course, guns have similar drawbacks. Adrenaline is fascinating stuff.
[deleted]
Yeah. Weak masculinity. You can't drive drunk but you can drink and carry ? Around kids and from 18 ? How could that go wrong ?
I’m an American and I think we should revoke the 2nd amendment. Who wants to live in a guns first society?
As someone who lives around bears, mountain lions, and wolves (in the US), guns are a reasonable thing to have available. I’ve personally run across all three of those without leaving my local urban area.
Mind you, I’m thinking of hunting rifles and revolvers generally, not assault rifles.
Mind you, I’m thinking of hunting rifles and revolvers generally, not assault rifles.
What is more dangerous, a random stranger with a gun or a bear? Can you conceive of a way to live in proximity to these animals without a firearm? Would our country be better off if the average citizen did not have such easy access to guns & ammunition?
> What is more dangerous, a random stranger with a gun or a bear?
So far, neither has harmed (major or minor) me or my extended family in any way. And I live within a few miles of places where people regularly hunt; in a deep red state with a long history of hunting and trapping and carrying firearms (open, concealed, and in vehicles).
Which one has come closer to being dangerous to me and mine? A bear. I've been at more risk of being mauled by a bear (driving down a road on an ATV and ending up between a mama and her cub) than being shot (haven't noticed a gun being pointed in my direction, no mass shootings within several hundred miles of my home).
And bears, if you're near their territory, are damned dangerous. They're wild animals who love to come into our places because we have free food (our trash). Bear spray, a long touted alternative, doesn't work on an angry bear. It doesn't even always work on an angry human.
> Can you conceive of a way to live in proximity to these animals without a firearm?
Not without sacrificing lives or property. Wild animals don't respect fences and property lines. And they regularly threaten people, pets, and livestock.
Additionally, IMO, a bullet is kinder than poison (which is what the Bureau of Wildlife Management uses).
> Would our country be better off if the average citizen did not have such easy access to guns & ammunition?
Hunting rifles and revolvers (as I called out in my original message)? I don't believe so. And my position is based on US history, where we've had access to these kinds of firearms for centuries.
Assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols? An unambiguous yes.
So far, neither has harmed (major or minor) me or my extended family in any way. And I live within a few miles of places where people regularly hunt; in a deep red state with a long history of hunting and trapping and carrying firearms (open, concealed, and in vehicles).
Which one has come closer to being dangerous to me and mine? A bear. I've been at more risk of being mauled by a bear (driving down a road on an ATV and ending up between a mama and her cub) than being shot (haven't noticed a gun being pointed in my direction, no mass shootings within several hundred miles of my home).
And bears, if you're near their territory, are damned dangerous. They're wild animals who love to come into our places because we have free food (our trash). Bear spray, a long touted alternative, doesn't work on an angry bear. It doesn't even always work on an angry human.
> Can you conceive of a way to live in proximity to these animals without a firearm?
Not without sacrificing lives or property. Wild animals don't respect fences and property lines. And they regularly threaten people, pets, and livestock.
Additionally, IMO, a bullet is kinder than poison (which is what the Bureau of Wildlife Management uses).
> Would our country be better off if the average citizen did not have such easy access to guns & ammunition?
Hunting rifles and revolvers (as I called out in my original message)? I don't believe so. And my position is based on US history, where we've had access to these kinds of firearms for centuries.
Assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols? An unambiguous yes.
Don't revoke it, just apply it: "well-regulated militia". Regulate, then !
Totally agree. Anyone who wants to carry should by virtue of the 2nd amendment, commit to at least one weekly all-day all-night training in the militia training center of their state. This is how I understand the meaning of the amendment. Also make yourself available for militia work as needed by your state on ~15 minutes notice
Every male US citizen between 17 and 45 is a member of the militia. Free ammunition, firearms and training is a great idea! It would be a bit silly to hold the militia to a higher standard than professional military though, and they typically do annual qualifications.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
Well members of the military are not allowed to roam about freely with concealed weapons, so yes obviously the militia has to be held to an higher standard!
>Who wants to live in a guns first society?
Roughly half the voters in America, which is why it's not going to change any time soon.
Roughly half the voters in America, which is why it's not going to change any time soon.
certainly not any tyrant!
Why would you think that? Tyrants love gullible people with guns. Stir up the trouble, dispose of opponents while keeping your hands clean, make people cry for law and order (so that you can enter the stage as their savior), and when all is said and done, send them to gulag or something.
Why is carrying a firearm such a "hill people choose to die on" item?
This an odd question to ask less than a week after Bob Lee was stabbed to death.
Interestingly, if you have a gun, you're more likely to die of homicide https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-...
Quote:
>Every time a gun in the home was used in self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were >four unintentional shootings, >seven criminal assaults or homicides, >and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
The data does not support that having a gun makes you safer
Quote:
>Every time a gun in the home was used in self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were >four unintentional shootings, >seven criminal assaults or homicides, >and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
The data does not support that having a gun makes you safer
That's simply not true.
Also, a hill they're choosing to kill kids on, which bothers me more.
Ekaros(2)
Lol. My gun is not welcome, so I'm not welcome. Whiny snowflake much ? How insecure can one be ? Conferences are much safer for not NOT allowing guns. Don't play the victim, and don't hurt anyone please.
As for trademark control, well, that's the way the world is. "Rust" is reserved for official Rust products. If youhave an issue with copyrights and stuff, go vote accordingly, but Rust doesn't have much of a choice unless they want to let "Rust" go public domain and let any and every one use it w/o any control.
As for trademark control, well, that's the way the world is. "Rust" is reserved for official Rust products. If youhave an issue with copyrights and stuff, go vote accordingly, but Rust doesn't have much of a choice unless they want to let "Rust" go public domain and let any and every one use it w/o any control.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Edit: you posted a whole bunch of flamewar comments. Can you please not do that on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are, or how provocative something in an article is or you feel it is? We're trying for a different kind of conversation here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you posted a whole bunch of flamewar comments. Can you please not do that on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are, or how provocative something in an article is or you feel it is? We're trying for a different kind of conversation here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You can't normalize carrying guns at dev conferences. If you let someone mention that in an "issues about a language" post, we must be able to point out a) how unrelated the 2 are and b) how murderous guns and gun-carriers are.
Guns were banned at an NRA conference. That's their own opinion on guns and gun carriers. Stop killing kids.
Guns were banned at an NRA conference. That's their own opinion on guns and gun carriers. Stop killing kids.
All that is orthogonal to whether you broke HN's rules or not. You broke them badly. That's not cool.
We have to ban accounts that do that, and I don't want to ban you so I'm asking you not to do it again.
We have to ban accounts that do that, and I don't want to ban you so I'm asking you not to do it again.
> Rust doesn't have much of a choice unless they want to let "Rust" go public domain and let any and every one use it w/o any control.
And that would be bad because....?
This is an open-source programming language, not a business. IMHO it shouldn't even be trademarked.
And that would be bad because....?
This is an open-source programming language, not a business. IMHO it shouldn't even be trademarked.
If you lose control of the trademark, you open the door to fake rust.
Here's a fantastic video on the controversy: https://youtu.be/gutR_LNoZw0
I can't believe this petty, in-group absurdity. It's Home Owners Association-level bullshit the likes of which I've never seen before in the software community.
They've created thousands of ways you can't create Rust events or even associate yourself with the language. It's 100% exclusionary and seems to go well beyond trademark protection.
The language doesn't belong to them.
I'm half minded to fork Rust and call it "Crust" or "Crab Language".