Does the software freedom conservancy authorize you to use the trademark?

[roastercode]

git is trademark https://git-scm.com/trademark

[dcousens]

2.3 Prohibited usages of the Marks

In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of the Git Project, the provenance of its software, or the software's license.

In any way that indicates a greater degree of association between you and the Git Project than actually exists.

In any way that implies a designated successor to Git (e.g., "Git++" is not permitted).

In any way that indicates that Git favors one distribution, platform, product, etc. over another except where explicitly indicated in writing by Conservancy.

In any other way that dilutes or otherwise infringes upon the trademark rights of Conservancy and the Git Project in the Marks.

To refer to the Git software, modified by a third party to the point of inoperability with > Git software in substantially unmodified form.

Seems to be the relevant section for this.

[cjb]

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't realize there was a trademark policy here. I've emailed the Conservancy asking for permission to use the name.

[dcousens]

@cjb any updates?

[cjb]

No, no reply from them yet.

[daveloyall]

By the power of prefixes, I summon... @bkuhn!

[cjb]

Huh, they said no:

After consulting with the Git Committee re: your request, Conservancy must respectfully decline your request for permission. While your project sounds exciting, we're concerned about the likelihood of confusion between your name and the Git project.

I'm surprised -- I wonder why GitHub's use of the mark is okay but this one isn't. Any ideas? It sucks that the proprietary service benefits from a descriptive name but a free software competitor can't.

I guess we need a new name! Here's what I've got, feel free to add more:

bitswarm blockswarm forkswarm reposwarm codetorrent

[waldyrious]

Is it possible to ask them for clarification re: github (which btw operates git.io), git-annex, gitblit, and so on?

[swizzard]

Maybe it's best we don't antagonize them further... On Jul 8, 2015 7:50 PM, "Waldir Pimenta" notifications@github.com wrote:

Is it possible to ask them for clarification re: github (which btw operates git.io), git-annex, gitblit, and so on?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/cjb/GitTorrent/issues/54#issuecomment-119761297.

[dcousens]

@swizzard at this point, what do we have to lose?

[daveloyall]

What about git-torrent?

All "git subcommands" named in the form of git-foobar, right?

What about "git transport helpers", how are they named?

[kjjaeger]

CodeSeed or CodeSeeder

[daveloyall]

torrentDAG or bitDAG

[jcbrand]

It totally sucks that the SFC turned down your request and doesn't seem to be aligned with their stated goal (in light of the fact that they gave permission to Github):

to make sure that the identity of Git software and its free and open source nature is clear to everyone

In any case, I looked at synonyms for torrent and found cloudburst.

I think that's a cool name, so throwing it in the hat here.

[rhetr]

everything besides gittorrent is pretty ambiguous in terms of explaining the actual functionality, and its silly to claim that 'gittorrent' could be conflated with git's functionality when you recall github, git-annex, gitorious, gitlab etc... i agree with @waldyrious that clarification should be requested

[dcousens]

Agreed, clarification should be requested. The name is incredibly obvious.

[daveloyall]

@joeyh, do you have time to review this thread and comment? Did you have any trouble naming git-annex?

[rom1504]

FYI https://github.com/search?o=desc&p=1&q=git&s=stars&type=Repositories&utf8=%E2%9C%93 It seems there are lot of projects named git[suffix]

[afs]

They may concerned as much about the "git" first. Commercially acceptable forms for other names are often like "Foo for NAME" ("Oracle Support for Apache Jena" for example).

torrent4git

[daveloyall]

After consulting with the Git Committee re: your request, Conservancy must respectfully decline your request for permission. While your project sounds exciting, we're concerned about the likelihood of confusion between your name and the Git project.

Was that all they said? Was there more?

Could we use the name without permission for a while and ask again later if this project becomes the git<-->torrent marriage. (Other projects have tried before!)

If we do decide to include the three letters git in the name of this project, I think we should do something akin to #60.

I'm not convinced that anyone can stop this project from naming itself GitTorrent. But it would be disrespectful to git and the SFC to fail to make it very clear that this isn't part of the main project.

[cjb]

@daveloyall Thanks, I've merged your PR. I don't have any other answers, but the SFC said they're willing to have a call to elaborate some more on the decision.

[justizin]

Just chiming in here that I agree renaming the project would make it more difficult to find, and that they should be asked about other git plugins (git-flow, git-annex, etc..) and whether git-torrent would be preferable to GitTorrent for some reason.

[Kinnardian]

@cjb I am not a lawyer but I think firmly that you should not change the name. I think their assertion is hot air. This project employs Git and Torrent, the name is an accurate description of what the project is. I think if you consult a lawyer they will agree with me. I don't think you should have asked for permission to use the Git in the name. I think this undermines your ability to advocate for what I believe is truly the case: you don't need their permission.

Again I am not a lawyer but I think 1) You don't need their permission 2)They wouldn't dare pursue litigation against you 3) If they did dare they wouldn't be doing much more than wasting their money.

I hope you don't back down.

[justizin]

It does seem that the proliferation of unauthorized projects with "git" in their name would point to dilution, but I am also not a lawyer.

[louy2]

The name "GitTorrent" is perfect for this. To the end of my limits I'd defend (but not a lawyer :disappointed: ) this name against whatever elaboration the SFC is gonna throw at it. @cjb Await your update.

[ahungry]

Edited out some incorrect assumptions after I read up on it some more.

Anyways, looking into it further (for Git* in the same industry category), GitLab and Git both filed for trademarks around the same time (just in June of 2013) and GitLab actually received approval before Git (making them the first registered Git* trademark in the industry). Github put in their trademark (and got approval) about a year after the other two, so I fail to see why GitTorrent couldn't also receive approval (especially if the category of goods/service differed).

[retrohacker]

FWIW, I would have never stumbled across this amazing project had it been branded under any other name. I googled "git torrent" and ended up here.

[pawelngei]

@cjb , hasn't the Conservancy gave any more verbose reason for their decision? If not, maybe it would be a sound idea to just petition them, gather 500+ signatures or emails from authentic FOSS contributors.

[thorsummoner]

If the project is forced to change its name the only other acceptable name IMO would be "git transport torrent", that's what this is anyway if I understand correctly

[falsechicken]

I personally think the name should stick. I think its crazy that all these other projects can use the Git name but this one cannot. I think that because of all those other projects that exist there is precedent for this project using the name. Whats the worst that can happen? Being forced to rename? Thats already being considered xD.

Plus can't the name of the project be Gittorrent (Not two like GitTorrent)? Isn't that a different word? Kinda like Mc' Donalds trying to sue me for creating Mc' Noodles?

(Disclaimer: I am no lawyer)

[P4KM4N]

I have the same issue with GitMarket, we ask them the permission and they denied. They say we must change name and branding and domain. This is stupid, we are a bootstraped startup, this will kill us.

[daveloyall]

Well. Now we know why the SFC defaults to "no".

[louy2]

It seems the "no" is not enforced so far. To prepare here is a piece of reference: https://git-scm.com/trademark

[P4KM4N]

@louy2 That's was what we were thinking too. So we kindly ask for permission and they denied. :(

[choikwa]

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-GitHub-allowed-to-have-Git-in-their-name

IANAL, one answer claims GitHub is a computer service TM. Maybe GitTorrent can be a service too.