rust non-free-compatible trademark
Richard Kenner
kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu
Sun Jul 17 18:28:51 GMT 2022
> I think you are misinterpreting when you need a trademark license for
> usage a word mark in an implementation of a compiler for a programming
> language. Note that gcc used to come with a full implementation of the
> Java programming language, compiler, runtime and core library
> implementation (for which I was the GNU maintainer). None of that
> required a trademark license because the usage of the word java was
> just for compatibility with the java programming language.
Was "Java" a trademark for both the language and compiler or just the
language? What about "rust"? That would seem to make a difference.
If the trademark is just for the language, then when you say you have
a "compiler for the XYZ language", you're refering to the trademarked
entity (the language) and you can always use a trademark to refer to
the trademark owner's product.
But if the trademark is also for the compiler and you have a different
compiler (even if it differs just by patches), you need the permission
of the trademark owner to call you compiler by the trademarked name.
More information about the Gcc
mailing list