3 ms·

It doesn't matter that he was asked to participate and didn't want to. What matters is whether he did or didn't give specific written permission that they could

It doesn't matter that he was asked to participate and didn't want to. What matters is whether he did or didn't give specific written permission that they could use the name Markdown. It's set in stone on the license.

pyre 12y ago
> It's set in stone on the license. Markdown-related projects have been using "Markdown" in the name for years (in violation of the license). Gruber has yet to get upset at "Github flavored Markdown" or "MultiMarkdown" for example. Methinks that it has less to do with the name, and more to do with their motive of becoming the new de facto Markdown spec that has Gruber up-in-arms.
- tzs 12y ago
  "github flavored markdown" sounds like a fork. "standard markdown" sounds like ownership. Not my project but shitty "standard justin" on Twitter [1] That. Exactly that. John Gruber in response to the above tweet [2] [1] https://twitter.com/justin/status/507304506007515136 https://twitter.com/justin/status/507304506007515136 [2] https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507305771265454080 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507305771265454080
tripzilch 12y ago
> What matters is whether he did or didn't give specific written permission that they could use the name Markdown. It's set in stone on the license. If you're going to paste the very same argument multiple times all over this discussion, you should at least first make sure it is correct. It's been explained several times now that this is not how that license works. It doesn't work (not binding) to specify trademark-related things in a copyright license. And anyway a copyright license only affects those bound by the copyright on the work: The work, being the code of Gruber's perl markdown parser. Which this group hasn't used at all. Usage of the name "Markdown" is something which has nothing to do with copyright but trademark law. Trademark law works very differently, definitely not by just writing up a license (like copyright) and simply said: The name Markdown is not trademarked (currently, and given its usage, also probably not in the future).
dredmorbius 12y ago
The license is to a specific work of software and applies to derivative works of it only. Naming conventions specified in the software license don't apply to 1) non-software works such as a spec or 2) independently derived software works. There's a great deal else concerning copyright/trademark confusion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271548

pyre 12y ago

> It's set in stone on the license. Markdown-related projects have been using "Markdown" in the name for years (in violation of the license). Gruber has yet to get upset at "Github flavored Markdown" or "MultiMarkdown" for example. Methinks that it has less to do with the name, and more to do with their motive of becoming the new de facto Markdown spec that has Gruber up-in-arms.

tzs 12y ago
"github flavored markdown" sounds like a fork. "standard markdown" sounds like ownership. Not my project but shitty "standard justin" on Twitter [1] That. Exactly that. John Gruber in response to the above tweet [2] [1] https://twitter.com/justin/status/507304506007515136 https://twitter.com/justin/status/507304506007515136 [2] https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507305771265454080 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507305771265454080

tripzilch 12y ago

> What matters is whether he did or didn't give specific written permission that they could use the name Markdown. It's set in stone on the license. If you're going to paste the very same argument multiple times all over this discussion, you should at least first make sure it is correct. It's been explained several times now that this is not how that license works. It doesn't work (not binding) to specify trademark-related things in a copyright license. And anyway a copyright license only affects those bound by the copyright on the work: The work, being the code of Gruber's perl markdown parser. Which this group hasn't used at all. Usage of the name "Markdown" is something which has nothing to do with copyright but trademark law. Trademark law works very differently, definitely not by just writing up a license (like copyright) and simply said: The name Markdown is not trademarked (currently, and given its usage, also probably not in the future).

dredmorbius 12y ago

The license is to a specific work of software and applies to derivative works of it only. Naming conventions specified in the software license don't apply to 1) non-software works such as a spec or 2) independently derived software works. There's a great deal else concerning copyright/trademark confusion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271548