mrmr1993

6 ms·

31.
by mrmr1993 8y ago
The project might need to change name; it seems like it may be violating the Git trademark rules[1]: > Portmanteaus ("GitFoo" or "FooGit") are out. Most of the cases run into this rule. For instance, we asked GitHub t
32.
by mrmr1993 9y ago
As you said, this is equivalent to factorisation in terms of complexity. The Wikipedia article[0] on the subject does a good job of summarising the details of this in the section "Other properties of repeatend lengths". For a simp
33.
by mrmr1993 9y ago
From https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw... > The USPTO initially rejected our application as confusingly similar to the existing trademark on GitHub, which was filed in 2008. While one migh
34.
by mrmr1993 9y ago
Looks like the gremlins ate them, sorry! [0]: https://git-scm.com/trademark [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw...
35.
by mrmr1993 9y ago
It seems like the distro name may violate the Git trademark policy [0]. From [1]: > ... you can't use the mark in a way that implies association with or endorsement by the Git project. It might be worth checking with the Git project
36.
by mrmr1993 9y ago
The DMCA could definitely be relevant. It mandates[0] that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." IANAL, but one could argue that YouTube (or lar
37.
Generic programs can't reliably use/manipulate documents via the DOM(github.com)
1 points by mrmr1993 9y ago|0 comments