rust non-free-compatible trademark

[Richard Kenner]

> 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.