Specifically, you cannot call it Rust in "trade" - for example you definitely couldn't sell your cool special version of rustc and also call it Rust in a way that could be argued that it is presenting itself as being condoned by the Rust Foundation (based on common examples, describing it as "Rust by Worik" or "CoolRust" are probably bad, "Wust (compatible with Rust)" is perfectly fine, there's probably some stuff in the middle)
I found this in a quick Google which covers the question from the "what counts for prior use for getting a registered trademark" side, so while it's probably not exactly the same definition of "use" for infringement it gives an idea of how weird this can get: Don't be confused about whether your trademark is used | Fish
In particular it describes that confusingly, "trade" is extremely poorly defined from what I can tell, and does not require actually asking for money or even giving people a product! But equally, only activities intended to be in support of commercial activity count, and which those are depends on the market... it's a terrible mess.
In short, I expect that it would be an very tough uphill battle to make the case that naming the executable rustc alone is an infringing use in almost any sensible situation, but I think it technically could count if you're particularly flagrant?
At leat to me "trade" is referring to the industry (and possibly region used.) So the same name can have multiple owners without infringing each other. Hence the video game is independent from the Rust foundation.
Thank you so much for linking to the article! It definitely helped me differentiate OSS and free software, as well as what I want to do in the future regarding it.
Unsure if this is directed to OP or not (the next sentence assumes so, since it's a top level reply.) I've been reading a lot recently as well about the difference, so if you want to discuss any gnu or fsf article feel free to DM. They have active communities on IRC/Libera Chat as well.
So what? It doesn't matter if you couldn't touch said digital data, except via controlled channel.
Anyone who uses Rust should understand it: that's how Pin works with self-referential types, after all. On one hand every type must be ready for it to be blindly memcopied to somewhere else in memory… on the other hand — Pin makes it possible to safely have types that couldn't be “blindly memcopied” anywhere — because it simply never gives you the ability to “touch” object of such “protected” type.
DRM works in the same way: sure, every piece of digital data could be copied… but only if you are allowed to “touch” it. If you are not allowed to touch… well, our whole civilization is built on that inability, currently!
You couldn't copy content of my bank account (and I couldn't copy yours), you couldn't copy my SIM card (and I couldn't copy yours), etc.
The fact that you could have two originals after copying doesn't mean that you should be allowed to have two originals after copying.
Copying creative works has been a problem since well before Shakespeare, let alone computing.
There's a reason that - corny ads aside - theft and copyright violations are different crimes. The old saw about "piracy isn't theft" is completely true: it's just that it's instead a significantly higher penalty crime instead.
If you want to change that, try whatever channels your political representation has, while I wouldn't hold your breath on that having any effect it's certainly going to be more than complaining about it here.
It is interesting how words are used. Piracy used to mean boarding someone else's ship at sea, killing them, and taking their cargo.
Putting kids in jail for "sharing" music, movies and games was never going to get public support. Now those kids are "pirates" and interpol is authorized to get them anywhere on the planet.