[blitblitblit]

Does this mean the "Media Guidelines" is going away? If we want to redistribute cargo or rust with some patched changes, I'd like to be able to do it without coming back and asking for trademark approval every time. Even if the resulting binary says "unofficial/unsupported build".

[steveklabnik]

I can't make any particular statements about what an organization that doesn't even exist yet may or may not do with its property.

Who is "we", in this case, out of curiosity?

[blitblitblit]

Any OS distribution, e.g. Debian maintainers should be asking permission to patch rust per Media Guidelines, but it doesn't always happen.

[vlang1dot0]

Reading the Media Guidelines, I don't see how you came to that conclusion:

> TL;DR: Most non-commercial uses of the Rust/Cargo names and logos are allowed and do not require permission; most commercial uses require permission. In either case, the most important rule is that uses of the trademarks cannot appear official or imply any endorsement by the Rust project.

https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/media-guide

[blitblitblit]

From the link:

> Uses that require explicit approval

> Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo package manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written permission from the Rust core team. We will usually allow these uses as long as the modifications are (1) relatively small and (2) very clearly communicated to end-users.

Patching for a specific architecture, distro, OS, et. all is going to result in "a modified version". You can't expect users as far down as the Debian Source DVDs to be able to submit that back to Rust for approval. Us folks using MIPS patch all the time, and redistribute binaries to help others.

[vlang1dot0]

Ah yes, you're totally right. I didn't realize there was quite a bit of additional content "below the fold" on that page.