"(…) Dr. Stallman notes that he cannot comment much about technical aspects of Rust, but he remains concerned (for a year already) about the trademark aspects. He is still receiving no clarification or assurances on the matter. Previously he suggested forking it and calling it something like “crust” (in a talk or a session he did with several Brazilian hackers). " (via)

How will we stave off ecosystem takeover if not by taking its early signs seriously? At the start of every case of “Stallman Was Right” was a lot of presumption that, in the eyes of many, did not make a solid conclusion.

As the saying goes, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think @floofloof@lemmy.ca summed things up pretty well here.

Also, from my reply to that comment:

As for the off-putting statements about ‘Rust people’: Since the article was published on March 19, I wonder if much of it, revolving around what the author saw as indications of authoritarianism, came from heavy disquiet in the face of authoritarianism’s recent gaining hold of the White house. I’d even consider it likely that people who post on Techrights have an above-average sensitivity for this kind of thing. It could be that the author has since arrived at a more differentiated and just view.

1. Your criticism omits the passages about usage of the MIT license over the GPL (the ones I quoted in the post). I haven’t quoted the other parts of the article because they are not as substantial, but their being opinionated and questionable in what they say about ‘Rust people’ does not mitigate the recklessness of those who strive to create MIT-licensed replacements for GNU coreutils.

2. Discord on the website of the Rust project: That’s not a lie at all: it was the truth at the time of publication on March 19, and even as late as May (having been there for at least four years). So it appears that the Rust project has decided to drop Discord as an officially advertised channel. Good move. I would think that vocal criticism like the author’s played a role in this.

3. Rust forum telling users to use Firefox, Chrome or Safari, and refusing to be accessible by other browsers (however circumventible this may have been): How was this not a sign of flagrant disregard for free software and for people’s right to use the web however the fuck they want to use it - or how they need to use it, in case of disabilities? (This antifeature doesn’t seem to be in place anymore, but compare point 2.)

“The only requirement is that you share your progress and log your hours.” So participants are free to choose how they log their hours?