> 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.
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.
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.)
I haven't been able to read most text on github on my old system with a good screenreader because the browser is outdated and can't run the github javascript applications fully correctly. This gitclassic interface is a lifesaver. From my VPS IP I got blocked but from my home residential IP it worked fine.
The github accessibility team has consistently ignored tickets about the lack of text for years. In the sense that they'll fix it for a month then revert and make it even worse. And that's fine, Microsoft is a business and making a profit is their goal. Supporting people who want text in the HTML doesn't make money.
I had a quick look and bolted out within half a minute. Trying to open an organization or repo throws an error. There’s a featured comparison section on the homepage, and tapping on the first one leads to a message saying free tier allows two things to be compared and a pro subscription allows more. Why put this as the first in this section then?
Seems like this is not fully baked yet and it pushes for pro subs a little too soon.
Github has been very anti-scraping lately, to the point that I can't even browse it in my browser's private mode. This seems to be impacting your implementation as well:
"Well, that didn't work
API rate limit exceeded for 18.220.172.92.
Want 5,000 requests/hour instead of 60?
Sign in for free to use your own GitHub API quota.
Sign in with GitHub
If you keep seeing this, open an issue"
Update: Another try and it did work. However, I take exception to your app's assertion that my project is unmaintained. I would call it "stable" and further claim that your assertion is borderline libel. (And its pretty insulting that the rationalization is apparently hidden behind a paywall.)
I had to go check. You're right: https://gitclassic.com/golang/go
Made me chuckle. Then when I click it it doesn't explain why it is declaring it unmaintained. Pretty insulting. Not a good user experience at all.
Pretty cool, one thing that would be useful: some kind of alerting or watch feature. Like "notify me if this repo's health score drops below X" or if a dependency gets a CVE. Would make it useful for teams that maintain a lot of open source dependencies.
29 comments
https://git-scm.com/about/trademark
> 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.
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/4175
There’s more discussion of the legal aspects of portmanteau words here 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.
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.)
The github accessibility team has consistently ignored tickets about the lack of text for years. In the sense that they'll fix it for a month then revert and make it even worse. And that's fine, Microsoft is a business and making a profit is their goal. Supporting people who want text in the HTML doesn't make money.
Seems like this is not fully baked yet and it pushes for pro subs a little too soon.
"Well, that didn't work API rate limit exceeded for 18.220.172.92. Want 5,000 requests/hour instead of 60? Sign in for free to use your own GitHub API quota. Sign in with GitHub If you keep seeing this, open an issue"
Update: Another try and it did work. However, I take exception to your app's assertion that my project is unmaintained. I would call it "stable" and further claim that your assertion is borderline libel. (And its pretty insulting that the rationalization is apparently hidden behind a paywall.)
It appears that rendering for code blocks (```) is still not implemented (see here https://gitclassic.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/100045).
Would love to see this grow
> Error: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'replace')
...this might need a bit more time in the oven