That's great news. Thank you, Ryan. How about terms like "tweet" and "retweet"? Or more generally, any word on the questions raised in the "Question about licensing" thread?
http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/9f90046f6469fb7b/954f6dc75e00e992 In particular, it would be great to get clarification in writing on twitter.com -- not sure if your mail here is binding :) -- about the terms for acceptable trademark usage, copyright claims, and patent claims, for third party libraries and third party implementations of the Twitter API. I fully understand that these are difficult questions, and certainly appreciate the effort it takes to get all the legal concerns addressed. Thanks again for chasing these down! -DeWitt On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Ryan Sarver <rsar...@twitter.com> wrote: > Duane, > > I've been able to follow up with our lawyers and they confirmed that it is > ok to include "Twitter" in the name of libraries that developers build. > Sorry it took so long to follow up, but I wanted to make sure we got a > strong, final answer back before responding. > > Best, Ryan > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Duane Roelands > <duane.roela...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> A question for the Twitter team: >> >> I'm the developer and maintainer of an open source library called >> "TwitterVB". Can I expect a nastygram from your lawyers at some >> point? Or is there some way I can have the project "vetted" to avoid >> such a thing in the future? >> > >