Wrong lede, IMHO.<p>The article starts with the desire to attend Rust conferences while strapped with firepower. Unfortunately, that's a loaded (ha) topic, which I'd guess will alienate maybe half the readers of the article, before they learn that there's things in the draft that <i>do</i> bother them...<p>Just flipping around the draft, I see things like this:<p>> <i>5.1.2 Websites</i><p>> <i>You may use the Word Marks and Logos, but not the Trade Dress, on your webpage to show your support for the Project as long as:</i><p>I think anyone will use these terms and senses of "Rust", "Cargo", and "Clippy" on Web pages for most whatever purposes they want, not only to "show [their] support for the Project".<p>There's more in the draft like that.<p>At first glance, this Rust Trademark Policy looks like it could function like a treaty amongst a handful of megacorps. It could also be used to carve out of a fiefdom.<p>Rust is clearly designed for systems programmers. Systems programmers learn to be savvy about standards and vendor dependencies, and (when they have a choice) to weigh what they invest in.<p>Personally, I'm all for open standards, building solid systems, and "defending the Internet". I don't yet know what to make of this document.