Hacker News Reader

I'd suggest running this by the Git project, considering they applied for a received a trademark specifically to crack down on use of the Git brand like this, and wrote up a pretty detailed post earlier this year:[1]

> this is necessary to prevent dilution of the mark for other uses, but there are also cases we directly want to prevent. [...] For example, imagine a software project which is only tangentially related to Git. [...] We don't endorse it, and it's just using the name to imply association that isn't there.

Given that this has basically nothing to do with Git but is instead built around the GitHub API, the name here is a little problematic.

If it weren't the case that this is already such a problem, I'd say you missed out on the opportunity to call this "GitNotified".

1. http://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw@...

View on HN

For example, imagine a software project which is only tangentially related to Git. It might use Git as a side effect, or might just be "Git-like" in the sense of being a distributed system with chained hashes. Let's say as an example that it does backups. We'd prefer it not call itself GitBackups. We don't endorse it, and it's just using the name to imply association that isn't there. You can come up with similar hypotheticals: GitMail that stores mailing list archives in Git, or GitWiki that uses Git as a backing store.