To be fair Goblin, reading the letter they only ask you to make
clear you're not affiliated. Not change the domain.
However, point taken it's confusing.
Take Twitterific's page: http://iconfactory.com/software/twitterrific
That bird looks familiar and the blue and there is no disclaimer.
I keep wanting apply everyday logic, but in the legal world it just
seems to go out of the window :-)
Now I really must do some coding :-)
On 14 Aug 2009, at 01:08, Goblin wrote:
I think the blog post actually makes things more confusing:
"Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more
wary although there are some exceptions here as well."
So, what are these exceptions? Does it come down to the projects @ev
and @biz particularly like? What if it's twit*** which obviously isn't
using their trademark but uses the same base (heck, by that logic
@leolaporte should be on my case)?
It would seem odd that mine is the only site to have received a
letter. If the primary concern was the twitter bird then why is the
new version an issue? When I was on the phone I think he said he was
waiting to hear back from California, so there is more than a passing
chance that it was personal opinion of a guy in London instead of
Twitter's own people.
As has been said, some proper clarification and a bit more
transparency with the community would go a really long way here
(although are Twitter now at the stage they can't comment on legal
matters until the lawyers check things over?)
On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin <stu...@abovetheinternet.org> wrote:
It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the "twit*/
twitter*" apps were to use "tweet" instead, would that sort the
Doesn't this blog post  from the "big horse's mouth" already
It is also interesting that Biz wrote favorable blog posts about
TwitterCounter  and Twitterific . Wonder how that will impact
anything, if at all.