I don’t understand who is pushing for this. What’s the other side of the argument here? I may be incorrect but that feels more restrictive than any other programming language trademark policy? It would be like Go saying you’re not allowed to use the word “go” for your packages or create your own custom gopher, it’s such a common and accepted behavior that would feel ridiculously restrictive without good justification.
Can a trademark holder can really stop anyone from modifying the mark? For instance, can Monsanto have a court stop someone from drawing a mutant-looking or withered version of the plant in their logo? (eg. <a href="https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/monsanto_withered_c.gif" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/monsanto_wither...</a>)<p>I don't see what's so unreasonable about the other points.
It’s very interesting how enforceable this trademark policy is. There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names.<p>P.S. I am not a lawyer.