I believe Rust is a poor choice for games. Games have always needed to balance iteration times with performance. C++ has traditionally been a good middle ground, but nowadays computers/consoles are fast enough that even javascript is a solid choice.
Rust makes sacrifices to iteration times for safety, not even for performance. It's optimizing the wrong thing and making the wrong trade offs (for games), and probably the primary reason there are so few Rust games. Your character controller, dialog system, inventory management, renderer, physics engine, and 99% of your actual game systems don't need memory safety.
Multiplayer and file IO would benefit from memory safety, and it would probably be a good idea for existing C++ game engines to consider adopting Rust frameworks for those parts (even if it wouldn't be bullet proof).
With that said, game dev is an art/craft, and people should use whatever tools they like to create their art. It doesn't bother me. I'm just saying that, from a strictly engineering opinion, I don't think Rust is the most pragmatic choice for game dev.
So they're saying that the AGPL v3 additional terms for Only office include this:
How can you retain the original logo if you don't have the right to use their trademarks? (I'm assuming they have a trademark for the logo)
This feels like a sleazy attempt to find a loop hole in the AGPL language to restrict commercial use. Afaik, GPL licenses specifically allow commercial distribution, as not doing so would be a restriction on freedom.
If Only Office doesn't want people to do this, they could have very easily just chosen a different license from the beginning. I find it hard to see them as the good guy here.