Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:55:33AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote: > > So I think we should generally recommend against such generic names > > during the naming phase. At this point, I'm not sure the pain of > > changing now is any less than the pain of changing later if and when > > there's a

Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 02:22:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:25:31AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > > > (Also, to be clear, this is all _only_ about "Git Cola". The "git-cola" > > > command is explicitly OK in the policy because that's how commands > > > work). > >

Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 06:58:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I can undertand the sentiment that we may not want to appear drawing > lines among friends, but ultimately the policy is about protecting > our friends from non-friends, so whether we like it or not, we may > have to be more

Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:25:31AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > (Also, to be clear, this is all _only_ about "Git Cola". The "git-cola" > > command is explicitly OK in the policy because that's how commands > > work). > > I agree about "git-cola" though I wonder about "git-dag" as this is

Re: Git trademark status and policy

Jeff King writes: > (Also, to be clear, this is all _only_ about "Git Cola". The "git-cola" > command is explicitly OK in the policy because that's how commands > work). These match my understanding. Thanks for spelling them out. That project is an example of being a good ecosystem citizen

Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 03:15:20AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote: >> The "Git Cola" project[1][2] provides two fully-featured Git porcelains, >> "git-cola" and "git-dag". The DAG tool is never referred to as a >> separate project, so shouldn't be

Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 03:15:20AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 03:26:56AM +0100, Jeff King wrote: > > > > - Commands like "git-foo" (so you run "git foo") are generally OK. > > This is Git's well-known extension mechanism, so it doesn't really > > imply

Re: Git trademark status and policy

Hi Peff, On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 03:26:56AM +0100, Jeff King wrote: > > - Commands like "git-foo" (so you run "git foo") are generally OK. > This is Git's well-known extension mechanism, so it doesn't really > imply endorsement (on the other hand, you do not get to complain if >

Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:55 AM, G. Sylvie Davies wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King wrote: >> As many of you already know, the Git project (as a member of Software >> Freedom Conservancy) holds a trademark on "Git". This email will try to

Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:55:15AM -0800, G. Sylvie Davies wrote: > Is "Gitter" allowed? (https://gitter.im/). > > More info here: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitter > > Also, their twitter handle is @gitchat. > > Not sure I'd even classify "gitter" as a portmanteau. I don't think

Re: Git trademark status and policy

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King wrote: > As many of you already know, the Git project (as a member of Software > Freedom Conservancy) holds a trademark on "Git". This email will try to > lay out a bit of the history and procedure around the enforcement of > that

Git trademark status and policy

As many of you already know, the Git project (as a member of Software Freedom Conservancy) holds a trademark on "Git". This email will try to lay out a bit of the history and procedure around the enforcement of that trademark, along with some open questions about policy. I'll use "we" in the