GitHub is not Git. This doesn't really have anything to do with Git at all. This shouldn't be called GitForms.
The Git trademark policy says they don't want people to name things like this.
> 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
I agree in general, but I think this ship has sailed a ways out to sea already. I don't think essentially anyone thinks "GitThing" is "git's official Thing".
Now that's an oversight! Since the Git project holds the trademark here, they better make sure they do what trademark holders do and have licensing arrangements in place with GitHub and GitLab regarding their use of the trademark. After all, how could anyone even begin to think about the existence of a trademark policy without taking these two obvious examples into account?
I mean. Is there any evidence SFC explicitly approved of those names? I haven't been able to find any. They've been in place for decades without apparent contest.
But it's a trademark, and trademark law in the USA is pretty constrained by "will an ordinary person likely be confused" and I can only come up with "probably not" counter-examples in enormous quantities (git-lfs? there are tons of git-prefixed things out there). Git™ is just used with git itself, in practice, and I've never seen anything else Git™-branded-and-prefixed by SFC that changes that.
I'm sure there's probably a court case or N that would make this a lot more clear, but it seems like a fairly safe established pattern in the industry, though it's best to respect SFC's request.
> Is there any evidence SFC explicitly approved of those names? I haven't been able to find any.
Yes. The trademark policy I linked to says,
"Please be aware that GitHub and GitLab are exceptions to this Policy because they are subject to explicit licensing arrangements".
(But let's even suppose that it didn't say that and the answer to the question you're asking were "no". No trademark holder is required to submit their agreements for public review. So what does it matter that the ones with the trademark policy haven't sought you out to get your input (and blessing)? The general shape of these replies—including the willingness to spend effort arguing but none to eliminate the ignorance that you're stumbling into the discussion with—is grating.)
How about email? Form runs on your (anything) -> creates a new email -> you get instant email notifications because it's an email. That's also perfect for MVPs, landing pages, portfolios or any low-volume use case. Why would I want to rely on a middleman or version control software for this?
If you know it's a glued-together solution that you'll have to rip apart if your program scales, why make it so complex in the first place?
Pretty cool, goes along the same lines as Giscus, using GitHub resources to host comments. But after the recent moves taken by GitHub on the fees put on self hosted runners, I can't be too sure if these things will stick around for a long time.
Your landing page makes a lot of claims that are not true
- that the code is 100% mit licensed (it's not)
- that this is in any way gdpr compliant (there are literal rules around this)
- that your data is encrypted and private (it isn't encrypted? Unless being written in Italian is encryption now?)
- that they'll have 99.9% uptime (there is no SLA for vercel hobby tiers)
- "No middlemen. No third-party storage. Every submission lives in your GitHub..." (that is the very definition of third-party storage and a middleman)
I recently found out about utterances which allows you to use GitHub issues to host comments, and I instantly thought of how this would be a good use case for forms.
Glad to see someone executing on this, and I love how descriptive the landing page is.
Neat hack, but it's free until it isn't. I worry about building things that rely solely on the good graces of Microsoft. Recent Actions news can support that skepticism.
It's no longer "live" so I wouldn't try and use it. I was using Supabase free tier to manage auth, and got tired of keeping it live. Good lesson learnt.
So, amusingly, a customer I consult for made a custom form submission application that is exactly this but creates issues in their private Gitlab rather than public Github.
It seems like you want to make this into some kind of viable business, and I don't mean to dissuade by any means, but this was a three-day project by a perfectly good guy, but one guy, extremely junior, that I was tasked with training on basic networking and systems administration duties. I don't want to speak ill of the man. I liked him a lot, but he was extremely hard to teach, could not seem to understand even the bare basics of how computers and the systems they collectively form when networked operate. But he could make this exact application, on his own, in a matter of days, before LLMs were a thing.
Not saying you can't manage it, but this is like trying to sell people sandwiches. Plenty make businesses doing exactly that, but you either need a captive audience or really good sandwiches, because most of the time anyone who wants one can make it themselves pretty easily.
GitHub is not Git. This doesn't really have anything to do with Git at all. This shouldn't be called GitForms.
The Git trademark policy says they don't want people to name things like this.
> 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
<https://git-scm.com/about/trademark>
so what about formsgit ? Would it be allowed perhaps?
> (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia")
GitHub, GitLab, Gitorious (now gone)...
I agree in general, but I think this ship has sailed a ways out to sea already. I don't think essentially anyone thinks "GitThing" is "git's official Thing".
Now that's an oversight! Since the Git project holds the trademark here, they better make sure they do what trademark holders do and have licensing arrangements in place with GitHub and GitLab regarding their use of the trademark. After all, how could anyone even begin to think about the existence of a trademark policy without taking these two obvious examples into account?
I mean. Is there any evidence SFC explicitly approved of those names? I haven't been able to find any. They've been in place for decades without apparent contest.
But it's a trademark, and trademark law in the USA is pretty constrained by "will an ordinary person likely be confused" and I can only come up with "probably not" counter-examples in enormous quantities (git-lfs? there are tons of git-prefixed things out there). Git™ is just used with git itself, in practice, and I've never seen anything else Git™-branded-and-prefixed by SFC that changes that.
I'm sure there's probably a court case or N that would make this a lot more clear, but it seems like a fairly safe established pattern in the industry, though it's best to respect SFC's request.
> Is there any evidence SFC explicitly approved of those names? I haven't been able to find any.
Yes. The trademark policy I linked to says, "Please be aware that GitHub and GitLab are exceptions to this Policy because they are subject to explicit licensing arrangements".
(But let's even suppose that it didn't say that and the answer to the question you're asking were "no". No trademark holder is required to submit their agreements for public review. So what does it matter that the ones with the trademark policy haven't sought you out to get your input (and blessing)? The general shape of these replies—including the willingness to spend effort arguing but none to eliminate the ignorance that you're stumbling into the discussion with—is grating.)
How about email? Form runs on your (anything) -> creates a new email -> you get instant email notifications because it's an email. That's also perfect for MVPs, landing pages, portfolios or any low-volume use case. Why would I want to rely on a middleman or version control software for this?
If you know it's a glued-together solution that you'll have to rip apart if your program scales, why make it so complex in the first place?
I believe this approach is superior because it minimizes reliance on GitHub as the sole backend provider.
You can utilize any mailing library in your backend to simply send emails or choose API email providers like Resend or Mailgun.
For spam protection, various providers are available, such as Cloudflare and Google.
> why make it so complex in the first place?
You're completely justified in questioning this, and I resonate with you and all the developers who feel the same way.
How do you send an email from your static page?
With a mailto: link.
That comes attached with a lot of spam though
<form action="mailto:contact@example.com">...
Pretty cool, goes along the same lines as Giscus, using GitHub resources to host comments. But after the recent moves taken by GitHub on the fees put on self hosted runners, I can't be too sure if these things will stick around for a long time.
Your landing page makes a lot of claims that are not true
- that the code is 100% mit licensed (it's not)
- that this is in any way gdpr compliant (there are literal rules around this)
- that your data is encrypted and private (it isn't encrypted? Unless being written in Italian is encryption now?)
- that they'll have 99.9% uptime (there is no SLA for vercel hobby tiers)
- "No middlemen. No third-party storage. Every submission lives in your GitHub..." (that is the very definition of third-party storage and a middleman)
Yes, but a language model patted them on the head and said this was a good idea, may as well make it mission-critical infrastructure.
Hahaha piercing through the llm infused haze.
I recently found out about utterances which allows you to use GitHub issues to host comments, and I instantly thought of how this would be a good use case for forms.
Glad to see someone executing on this, and I love how descriptive the landing page is.
Neat hack, but it's free until it isn't. I worry about building things that rely solely on the good graces of Microsoft. Recent Actions news can support that skepticism.
Good that you've positioned it for prototypes.
There’s a lot of prior art for similar usage: Utterances for comments, gists being used for JS-snippet platforms.
Ha, I feel the pain. I built this a while ago to scratch a similar itch.
https://feature-refactor-for-cloudfl.first-contact.pages.dev...
It's no longer "live" so I wouldn't try and use it. I was using Supabase free tier to manage auth, and got tired of keeping it live. Good lesson learnt.
Looks cool! Good work. Seems like a great solution for a mvp.
So, amusingly, a customer I consult for made a custom form submission application that is exactly this but creates issues in their private Gitlab rather than public Github.
It seems like you want to make this into some kind of viable business, and I don't mean to dissuade by any means, but this was a three-day project by a perfectly good guy, but one guy, extremely junior, that I was tasked with training on basic networking and systems administration duties. I don't want to speak ill of the man. I liked him a lot, but he was extremely hard to teach, could not seem to understand even the bare basics of how computers and the systems they collectively form when networked operate. But he could make this exact application, on his own, in a matter of days, before LLMs were a thing.
Not saying you can't manage it, but this is like trying to sell people sandwiches. Plenty make businesses doing exactly that, but you either need a captive audience or really good sandwiches, because most of the time anyone who wants one can make it themselves pretty easily.