Do ctrl+f for „trademark“, there are currently 12 occurrences. Here’s what the Redis representative wrote:

> These are not my words nor the message I want to convey. In a private call, I said that it feels strange to use the brand name for a library that keeps supporting all the forks indefinitely and does not grant compatibility for the product itself. I also said that it does not make a lot of sense to pretend to rename a crate and replace it with the same software or an alternative library, thus creating confusion and frustration. However, companies do consider protecting their trademarks where their reputation is challenged. This does not need any explanation. In my private call with Armin, I highlighted that. Of course, there is no plan to take action regarding the trademark, but to find a reasoned and agreed-upon way forward to avoid introducing another Redis Rust client library where changes, improvements, and innovation can be introduced.

So basically the point is to make thinly veiled threats of copyright enforcement to „agree to a solution“.

The Mafia also agrees with you on a payment plan after highlighting that a fire would be a shame in your establishment.

▲

tayo42 10 months ago | parent [-]

He published the emails where it says they want to own the library so they can set the road map for it, they're offering to pay for it.That quote even says they're not looking to take action over the trademark.

Your response is alittle over emotional.

▲

echoangle 10 months ago | parent [-]

I just quoted the part where the Redis representative describes a private call. How does the content of the emails negate that?

> That quote even says they're not looking to take action over the trademark.

Yeah, he’s basically saying „also, we think you’re infringing but we won’t have to enforce that, right? I’m sure we can come to an agreement, wink wink“.

Maybe I’m reading this completely wrong but this reminder is basically a threat to sue you to death if you don’t comply.

	▲	tayo42 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		> Maybe I’m reading this completely wrong IMO you are because your attempting to "read between the lines" and add things that aren't there while ignoring things that contradictory to what this hypothetical lawsuit would include. He says they don't want to cause a mess of renaming, or forking because it would be worse off and confusing for everyone