Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add "crates.io Policy Update" RFC #3463
Add "crates.io Policy Update" RFC #3463
Changes from all commits
5ea4917
2a9a604
a2ce165
fab5d16
2c99c00
136d071
9101524
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We had a situation where another developer forked an unpublished crate from our public GitHub, then published it on crates.io. In that specific case, we had used a generic crate name, so we were able to choose a similar new name.
But what would happen if they had used the name of our project as a crate name? Would that be considered impersonating the project?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
as I mentioned below, reserving a crate name is allowed by these proposed rules if there is a linked repository where development activity can be verified.
I think this would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis after contacting the user and seeing the contents of what was published. I fear that having a fixed ruleset for such a situation would just cause this malicious user to look for the loophole in the ruleset and apply that.
also, for context: the described situation has unfortunately happened a bunch of times over the past couple of months/years and is part of why we are proposing new policies that would allow us to potentially act in such cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems like specifically warning people against forking crates and publishing them under the original name might be helpful?
The person who forked our crate also removed all the commit history and licensing, because they didn't understand either the legal or moral authorship requirements. So it seems like something that might need to be spelt out clearly and directly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removing licensing information means the crate "infringes any proprietary right of any party, including [...] copyright", so that's already clear cut in the proposal.
(Using the name of a project as a crate name without the project's permission is definitely moving into trademark infringement territory, whether the trademark is registered or not, but that's admittedly a bit more nebulous, and a clear rule might be in order.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's technically true that we could have asked for a takedown from crates.io under this policy. But instead we submitted a PR to their repo with the correct license info, which they accepted.
So it's clear cut, but perhaps not actually the desired first action?
Yes, I think a clear rule about project names and prefixes would be helpful.