5 ms·

It might be prudent to double-check git's trademark policy. https://git-scm.com/about/trademark https://git-scm.com/about/trademark

• dijksterhuis 6mo ago
  > In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code. > Please be aware that GitHub and GitLab are exceptions to this Policy because they are subject to explicit licensing arrangements that pre-date, and thus take precedence, over this Policy.
  • lemagedurage 6mo ago
    Wow, that feels quite restrictive. "Classic for Git" would be allowed, but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
  • Zee2 6mo ago
    What about Gitea? Hmm…
    • deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    • dijksterhuis 6mo ago
      only thing i found after a relatively quick sleuth https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/4175 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/4175
  • fc417fc802 6mo ago
    That seems overly broad. Is there precedent for that?
    • deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    • seanhunter 6mo ago
      That seems pretty normal to me. Try this thought experiment. Suppose I make an accessory that adds an ironing board to the back of F150 trucks[1] and I call my company “Fordboard”? Do you think that portmanteau is a trademark violation or not? I think Ford probably would fight and win against me if I did such a thing, in particular because I am using the registered mark (Ford) to refer to the actual thing so I can’t pretend that’s just a coincidence. That is also the case here with gitclassic. If I called my guitar shop that I might have more of a leg to stand on. There’s more discussion of the legal aspects of portmanteau words here https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/07/almost-everything-you-want-to-know.html https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/07/almost-everything-you-... [1] I didn’t say it’s a good business idea, I came up with the portmanteau first.
      • fc417fc802 6mo ago
        Well you aren't referring to a truck or even a vehicle. However I agree that your example product is intimately related to the trademarked item just as it is in this case. That's exactly why I'm wondering about precedent. It seems overly broad to me, a layman, but could well be the established status quo. I would naively expect it to depend on whether the mark could reasonably be confused by a customer with the name in question. To that end fordboard and gitclassic seem problematic since they read like two separate words, one of which is the protected mark. In contrast, something like gitea seems like it ought to be in the clear - no one is ever going to think "git [space] ea huh wonder what ea by git is". (Ford should totally release a vehicle under the name Board that would be hilarious.) > it is better when there is an overlap in the distinctive sound of the two words. From the article you linked - this matches my intuition and is largely why I feel like gitea ought to be in the clear. Unfortunately it seems to be about trademarking portmanteaus as opposed to the creation of portmanteaus using one or more trademarks. (More is better - my next terrible idea is gitzurite.)
  • PufPufPuf 6mo ago
    So magit is also in breach?
    • Pay08 6mo ago
      Maybe since it's free and therefore not a "product", it's fine? But then you also have things like gitkraken, which is certainly a service.
• yomismoaqui 6mo ago
  What about Gitfuckyourstupidtrademarks, is it a kosher name?