4 ms·

http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license "Neither the name “Markdown” nor the names of its contr

http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license "Neither the name “Markdown” nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." It's a total breach of license, and on a fairly standard BSD too. I'm seriously getting tired of copy-pasting this, and surprised that ya'll are defending this whole thing. but I guess I shouldn't. Anyway, I better jet before I start trolling. In the end, I'm ok with making a better markdown, but completely opposed to breaking the law.

scottjad 12y ago
IANAL but that license term only applies to derivatives of the Markdown code. Markdown is written in Perl. Standard Markdown has released implementations in C and Javascript. It seems unlikely that they are using Markdown code, therefore I don't think they are bound by anything in the Markdown license.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  Yep, that license seems to apply to the code. Now we get into the question of whether an abstract API can be copyrighted -- we all assumed no, although the Oracle v. Google case (about Java), suggested an abstract API could be copyrighted. With, most of HN thinks, fairly disastrous consequences if that holds as law, although I think it's probably going to be litigated more. I frankly doubt Gruber was assuming that his abstract (poorly specified!) API for Markdown could be copyrighted. And almost everyone on HN seemed to think it would be disastrous if that were the case regarding Java; it would be somewhat hypocritical if the same people think it somehow ought to be the case regarding Markdown.
- ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
  They are bound by the fact that it's about the name 'Markdown', the code/spec is irrelevant, hence the words 'Neither the name "Markdown"...". Discussions about code/spec/philosopy are irrelevant and would be deemed as such in court. It's too bad because I actually really like this, but I think it's not going to take off because of all the courtroom drama.
  - scottjad 12y ago
    You can't just write whatever you want in a license and bind people who aren't using/modifying/distributing your software.
shard972 12y ago
So is any fork of markdown that uses the word markdown count as a violation of the BSD license until you get written permission from gruber himself?
dredmorbius 12y ago
Interesting point, but it fails a number of crucial tests: ⚫ The spec isn't code. More to the point, it's not a derivative work of Markdown itself. The BSD license applies to the licensed work as a whole. What it doesn't apply to, specifically, is other works which refer to the original. That is: copyright is not trademark, and you cannot embed an effective trademark license within a copyright license. ⚫ Works (parsers, libraries, etc.) based on the Standard Markdown spec which do not incorporate any of Gruber's original Markdown code are themselves not derivative works of Gruber's original BSD-licensed work, and again, are not governed by the license. ⚫ There are a number of things copyright doesn't apply to: functional works (SEGA v. Accolade), simple compilations of facts (Feist v. Rural Electric), and APIs or standards (I'm aware of a few cases involving these, though I don't recall specifically if any are precedent). Specifically, however, a copyright license cannot cover facts or functional design. It only applies to a specific expression of an idea. Paraphrase that idea and you're scott-free. So while you raise an interesting point, it's moot here.

scottjad 12y ago

IANAL but that license term only applies to derivatives of the Markdown code. Markdown is written in Perl. Standard Markdown has released implementations in C and Javascript. It seems unlikely that they are using Markdown code, therefore I don't think they are bound by anything in the Markdown license.

jrochkind1 12y ago
Yep, that license seems to apply to the code. Now we get into the question of whether an abstract API can be copyrighted -- we all assumed no, although the Oracle v. Google case (about Java), suggested an abstract API could be copyrighted. With, most of HN thinks, fairly disastrous consequences if that holds as law, although I think it's probably going to be litigated more. I frankly doubt Gruber was assuming that his abstract (poorly specified!) API for Markdown could be copyrighted. And almost everyone on HN seemed to think it would be disastrous if that were the case regarding Java; it would be somewhat hypocritical if the same people think it somehow ought to be the case regarding Markdown.
ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
They are bound by the fact that it's about the name 'Markdown', the code/spec is irrelevant, hence the words 'Neither the name "Markdown"...". Discussions about code/spec/philosopy are irrelevant and would be deemed as such in court. It's too bad because I actually really like this, but I think it's not going to take off because of all the courtroom drama.
- scottjad 12y ago
  You can't just write whatever you want in a license and bind people who aren't using/modifying/distributing your software.

shard972 12y ago

So is any fork of markdown that uses the word markdown count as a violation of the BSD license until you get written permission from gruber himself?

dredmorbius 12y ago

Interesting point, but it fails a number of crucial tests: ⚫ The spec isn't code. More to the point, it's not a derivative work of Markdown itself. The BSD license applies to the licensed work as a whole. What it doesn't apply to, specifically, is other works which refer to the original. That is: copyright is not trademark, and you cannot embed an effective trademark license within a copyright license. ⚫ Works (parsers, libraries, etc.) based on the Standard Markdown spec which do not incorporate any of Gruber's original Markdown code are themselves not derivative works of Gruber's original BSD-licensed work, and again, are not governed by the license. ⚫ There are a number of things copyright doesn't apply to: functional works (SEGA v. Accolade), simple compilations of facts (Feist v. Rural Electric), and APIs or standards (I'm aware of a few cases involving these, though I don't recall specifically if any are precedent). Specifically, however, a copyright license cannot cover facts or functional design. It only applies to a specific expression of an idea. Paraphrase that idea and you're scott-free. So while you raise an interesting point, it's moot here.