This project would seem to fall foul of the Git naming trademark and would likely need to rename unless they have specific permission? > In addition, you may n

This project would seem to fall foul of the Git naming trademark and would likely need to rename unless they have specific permission? > 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 without Conservancy's written permission. 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.[0] Git has grandfathered in some projects due to their history but hasn't allowed Portmanteaus for some years: > - Portmanteaus ("GitFoo" or "FooGit") are out. Most of the cases run into this rule. For instance, we asked GitHub to not to use "DGit" to refer to their replicated Git solution, and they[1] rebranded. We also asked "GitTorrent" not to use that name based on this rule.[1] [0] https://git-scm.com/about/trademark https://git-scm.com/about/trademark [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw@sigill.intra.peff.net/ https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw...