4 ms·

I'd suggest running this by the Git project, considering they applied for a received a trademark specifically to crack down on use of the Git brand like this, a

I'd suggest running this by the Git project, considering they applied for a received a trademark specifically to crack down on use of the Git brand like this, and wrote up a pretty detailed post earlier this year:[1] > this is necessary to prevent dilution of the mark for other uses, but there are also cases we directly want to prevent. [...] For example, imagine a software project which is only tangentially related to Git. [...] We don't endorse it, and it's just using the name to imply association that isn't there. Given that this has basically nothing to do with Git but is instead built around the GitHub API, the name here is a little problematic. If it weren't the case that this is already such a problem, I'd say you missed out on the opportunity to call this "GitNotified". 1. http://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw@sigill.intra.peff.net/ http://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw@...

nerdponx 9y ago
What about GHNotifier? It would probably still need a disclaimer on the site that they aren't officially associated with GitHub.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jchw 9y ago
  I think the defacto standard would be something like "Notifier for GitHub" adhering to the trademark rules. Less fun, though.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Usu 9y ago
Author here, the project was originally named GitHub Notifier, however shortly after launch the legal department of GitHub contacted me and was very helpful to guide me through resolving the issues with the naming, they even sent me a mug to compensate for the trouble of going through the name change even though I was clearly violating their terms.
- singlow 9y ago
  Well, GitHub doesn't own he trademark for Git, only for GitHub. They have a mutual agreement with the Git project (Software Freedom Conservancy). The Git project guidelines seem to disallow this usage: For example, imagine a software project which is only tangentially related to Git. It might use Git as a side effect, or might just be "Git-like" in the sense of being a distributed system with chained hashes. Let's say as an example that it does backups. We'd prefer it not call itself GitBackups. We don't endorse it, and it's just using the name to imply association that isn't there. You can come up with similar hypotheticals: GitMail that stores mailing list archives in Git, or GitWiki that uses Git as a backing store.
- carussell 9y ago
  It sounds like GitHub talked you out of using a name that was stepping on their own trademark and into using one which was stepping on someone else's (and that they knew about). If you're willing to share the conversations you had with them, that would be pretty interesting.

nerdponx 9y ago

What about GHNotifier? It would probably still need a disclaimer on the site that they aren't officially associated with GitHub.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jchw 9y ago
I think the defacto standard would be something like "Notifier for GitHub" adhering to the trademark rules. Less fun, though.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Usu 9y ago

Author here, the project was originally named GitHub Notifier, however shortly after launch the legal department of GitHub contacted me and was very helpful to guide me through resolving the issues with the naming, they even sent me a mug to compensate for the trouble of going through the name change even though I was clearly violating their terms.

singlow 9y ago
Well, GitHub doesn't own he trademark for Git, only for GitHub. They have a mutual agreement with the Git project (Software Freedom Conservancy). The Git project guidelines seem to disallow this usage: For example, imagine a software project which is only tangentially related to Git. It might use Git as a side effect, or might just be "Git-like" in the sense of being a distributed system with chained hashes. Let's say as an example that it does backups. We'd prefer it not call itself GitBackups. We don't endorse it, and it's just using the name to imply association that isn't there. You can come up with similar hypotheticals: GitMail that stores mailing list archives in Git, or GitWiki that uses Git as a backing store.
carussell 9y ago
It sounds like GitHub talked you out of using a name that was stepping on their own trademark and into using one which was stepping on someone else's (and that they knew about). If you're willing to share the conversations you had with them, that would be pretty interesting.