But calling it OpenAlacritty would be worse, which is what happened here.

Historically, it means a community of developers have decided to break with the old project for some reason. Jenkins is a community fork. Mariadb is a community fork. Joomla is a community fork. Illumos was a community fork. Rocky Linux is a community fork. Valkey is a community fork.

This is a personal project by someone with no connection to the project or its code. It is misleading to claim to represent the Warp "community". Maybe there will be a community around Warp someday, and maybe there will be a reason for community members to fork it, but for now, it is a newly open sourced project, and this is a person trying to build their own reputation on someone else's work.

Forks are a good and natural part of the Open Source and Free Software world. But, a good fork doesn't look anything like this. It involves stakeholders, it respects the work others have put into the project in the past, and it doesn't confuse users with a misleadingly similar name.

At the very least, you change the name when you fork something, if you have any decency or respect for Open Source and its historical mores. I wouldn't have said a word about it, if they'd changed the name, I would have ignored it (as I assume most people would have, if it didn't share a name with something people are already talking about). But, since they're coming out of the gate being an entitled jerk about software that folks have chosen to Open Source, I'm inclined to point out that they're not behaving ethically on multiple fronts.

You probably can't name a project OpenWarp for the same reason you can't name a search engine OpenGoogle, even though it's a different name to the original. In this case, it's particularly confusing because the original warp project _is_ now open source.

Definitely rude, too close to the same name. Warp just recently open sourced their client, a [not community] personal fork should be more considerate.

Try do create a game called ”Open Pokémon Go” and see if it works or not.

It is not the "open" version of Warp. Warp is already open. So the name is rude.

This is about the name, not the source.

Also calling a fork "Open" is disingenious. They wouldn't be able to fork it if the original wasn't "open".

> even if this isn't 'free' licensed

What part of it isn't "free"?

One can claim a trademark without registering it (the difference between ™ and ®). But, if one wanted to sue, you'd probably register it first. But, a claimed trademark that is suitably unique for your product is defensible if you can prove consistent usage pre-dating the new user of that mark.

I'd be pissed if someone took one of my open source projects, forked it, and also stole the name (and put "Open" in front, despite the fact that the thing they forked is Open Source), misleading users and diluting the brand with software I have no control over.

I don't even know what Warp is, but I'm mad as hell about it. As an Open Source developer of 30 years, I expect people to operate with something like honor and decency and respect for other people. Taking someone's open project and launching a competing fork with the same name is hugely disrespectful and dishonorable behavior.

https://uspto.report/TM/90342558

> WARP® trademark registration is intended to cover the categories of [...] Downloadable computer terminal emulator program [...]

Here are some links to the official website of the actual United States Patent and Trademark Office, commonly and distinctly abbreviated "USPTO", whose domain name is duly registered at uspto.gov

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/90342560

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/90342558

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/88455403

Search for "wordmark" "warp", filter for currently live and 009, shows 44 results.

A search for "openwarp" yields 0 results, none dead, none historical; nowhere in the system is this unique name registered.

A banner at top-of-page offers various pointers for consumers on how to discern official US Gov websites from imposters, domain squatters, and name-stealers

Mixing etiquette and copyright.

It is not only rude but also misleading and frankly, stupid.