I'm afraid I wasn't personally involved in 2016, and it's a long time ago, so I don't know all the details, but:
The first message in #815006 seems to have been the critical change. That looks like a public waiver, by Mozilla, in writing, of their own policy. It's a little too vague for my taste and is obviously a fudge. But it was tolerable enough for Debian.
It would be better for Rust not to dig itself into this hole to begin with, than for it to have to issue some kind of "clarification" that the policy doesn't mean what it says. As I write in my consultation response, requiring approval for modifications is not necessary. It's just a thing that corporate trademark lawyers with insuffient Free Software background do by default. Allowing people to modify the software goes quite against their grain. But Free Software and Open Source projects have been allowing modifications for decades, without significant problems.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Comparison with Iceweasel situation
Date: 2024-11-20 07:01 pm (UTC)I'm afraid I wasn't personally involved in 2016, and it's a long time ago, so I don't know all the details, but:
The first message in #815006 seems to have been the critical change. That looks like a public waiver, by Mozilla, in writing, of their own policy. It's a little too vague for my taste and is obviously a fudge. But it was tolerable enough for Debian.
It would be better for Rust not to dig itself into this hole to begin with, than for it to have to issue some kind of "clarification" that the policy doesn't mean what it says. As I write in my consultation response, requiring approval for modifications is not necessary. It's just a thing that corporate trademark lawyers with insuffient Free Software background do by default. Allowing people to modify the software goes quite against their grain. But Free Software and Open Source projects have been allowing modifications for decades, without significant problems.