Slowly but surely the Rust language is making its way into Linux. I talked with Linus Torvalds and Greg Kroah-Hartman about where they see Rust and Linux working together.
I’ve seen the link, read it, and think about it, here be my conclusion.
rust trademark
For non-commercial use, you can do it willynilly. For commercial use you must NOT appear as if your product came from the Rust organization (for example, if you’re making a commercial proprietary language based on rust) without explicit permission. I think that still doesn’t ruin the third right of distributing the modified copy of your own software. You just need to make sure that the one you’re distributing and have modified is in fact from your own making AND doesn’t have anything to do with the rust trademark without special permission. It’s about not confusing who is who, not about “DONT USE OUR TRADEMARK REEEE”.
The alternative to this is to not use the name of rust and cargo to use in your trademark (if it’s for commercial use), but you can still refer that your software is using both of those technology.
centralized ecosystem
this is old news and have been debunked already. You can use your own private crate, you can choose your own source for your packages, and you can ditch cargo entirely when you can’t fulfill your need via private crates and direct package-from-source solution.
I don’t think it has a place in a kernel in its current state.
Even your article states that there’s alternative to this problem, which is to rebrand something, that’s it. The article is about the flaws, but not about whether it’s possible or it have a place or not in the kernel. I think it does have a place, we just need to make sure that it doesn’t have a branding problem.
I’ve seen the link, read it, and think about it, here be my conclusion.
For non-commercial use, you can do it willynilly. For commercial use you must NOT appear as if your product came from the Rust organization (for example, if you’re making a commercial proprietary language based on rust) without explicit permission. I think that still doesn’t ruin the third right of distributing the modified copy of your own software. You just need to make sure that the one you’re distributing and have modified is in fact from your own making AND doesn’t have anything to do with the rust trademark without special permission. It’s about not confusing who is who, not about “DONT USE OUR TRADEMARK REEEE”.
The alternative to this is to not use the name of rust and cargo to use in your trademark (if it’s for commercial use), but you can still refer that your software is using both of those technology.
this is old news and have been debunked already. You can use your own private crate, you can choose your own source for your packages, and you can ditch cargo entirely when you can’t fulfill your need via private crates and direct package-from-source solution.
Even your article states that there’s alternative to this problem, which is to rebrand something, that’s it. The article is about the flaws, but not about whether it’s possible or it have a place or not in the kernel. I think it does have a place, we just need to make sure that it doesn’t have a branding problem.