[koolba]

> We’re building Gitlip - the collaborative devtool for the AI era. An all-in-one combination of Git-powered version control, collaborative coding and 1-click deployments.

Did they get a waiver from the git team to name it as such?

Per the trademark policy, new “git${SUFFIX}” names aren’t allowed: 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 without Conservancy's written permission. 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.

[WorkerBee28474]

You don't need their permission to make a portmanteau, all you need is to follow trademark law (which may or may not allow it). The policy page can go kick sand.

[saurik]

While true, using someone else's trademark as a prefix of your name when you are actively intending it to reference the protected use seems egregious.

[eli]

Do you think many users will mistakenly believe Gitlip is an official Git project put out by the same authors as Git?

There can't be trademark infringement unless there is a likelihood of confusion.

[saurik]

I don't know. I do know that an incredible number of users do not understand that GitHub is NOT an official anything, and so I feel like we have an existence proof of this being a serious concern. (That said, I also can see an argument that once git allowed that to happen without a fight, or even AFAIK at least some retroactive agreement--and then further also allowed GitLab--that they don't even have an enforceable trademark anymore, at least with respect to this kind of prefix use. But like, this is a kind of oblique argument that I don't think you are already making.)

[fumplethumb]

What about… GitHub, Gitlab, Gitkraken, GirButler (featured on HN recently)? The list goes on forever!

[afiori]

Supposedly they got written permission

[trillic]

Gitea?

[afiori]

supposedly the same

[_qrpb]

OP here. Oops, thank you for pointing that out! We weren’t aware of it. We will investigate ASAP. In the worst case, we’ll change our name.

[benatkin]

Doesn't sound worse case to me. It could use a better name anyway.

[Spunkie]

gitlip is not a good name, but you can be sure that if a new name does not include git it will be a worse name.

[benatkin]

How so? I think they'd want to make a more generic name, because their success so far seems to be in gluing a couple of things not directly related to git together. These are running WebAssembly on the server and using a centralized storage backend. Even if they're laser-focused on the same problem of multi-tenant version control, I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to support using CRDTs in a similar matter down the road.

[xk3]

right... they should call it Cloudflarelip /s

[rzzzt]

What about an old word? Agitator, legitimate, cogitate?

[singron]

Is the syllable still the Mark if you pronounce it with a soft G instead of a hard G?