Projects can be set up so that one entity (possibly a company which is a Linux Foundation Member) exerts dominant influence. This is one reason that many companies are comfortable bringing projects to the LF — and that's arguably better on balance for the Open Source ecosystem than them keeping those projects in-house and their governance murky.

Rust, though, is already at Mozilla, whose influence seems to be benign.

I'm curious, which Mozilla entity holds the trademark: is it the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation, or is it their for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation?

> I'm curious, which Mozilla entity holds the trademark: is it the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation, or is it their for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation?

I never thought about this, but TESS says it's Moco, which is what I'd expect.

I wonder if it's reasonable to donate that trademark to the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation and to then formalize a charter laying out Rust governance.

For what it's worth I would have greater confidence in such an arrangement than I would in a 501(c)(6) Business League version of a Rust Foundation, which would in my view undermine independence.

I don't think that helps accomplish one of the main goals of this effort, which is to demonstrate independence.