[newtoday]

If I remember correctly from previous posts about the use of 'Git', this also violates the Git trademark.

Edit: Okay, I decided to not be lazy and provide more information.

Official Git trademark policy: https://git-scm.com/about/trademark

Also, if the OP / creator wants to, they can ask for wriiten permission to use the name. Although, I've read instances of them simply saying no.

[notRobot]

The relevant bit:

> 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.

[evv]

This is fascinating. Has GitHub received permission, or is their trademark in jeopardy? And, what about Gitlab, Gitea, and all?

The growth of git as a distributed service has suffered greatly at the hands of GitHub.. makes me wonder if the Git Conservancy would be inclined to push back.

[detaro]

Github was trademarked before git. The git trademark was only granted with a documented understanding they wouldn't conflict. Projects existing at that time got exceptions, and new ones are still sometimes granted.

EDIT: some more details: https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw...