[jcranmer]

It's an argument a lawyer could make in court with a straight face. But that's not the same as an argument likely to win in court. The fundamental purpose of trademark is protecting commercial purity of a product; a GitHub fork whose relation to the original is pretty clearly stated and isn't trying to present itself as a viable alternative to the original is just unlikely to be seen as in the purview of trademark protection in the first place.

Arguing that it's covered because it's distribution requires chaining through a few overly literal definitions to achieve that result, and that isn't likely to be winning argument against a gut instinct of "no, it's just not."