4 ms·

> However, Standard Markdown does violate MD’s BSD license: > Neither the name “Markdown” nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote p

by pkamb 12y ago

> However, Standard Markdown does violate MD’s BSD 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. > So does MultiMarkdown. So does Github Flavored Markdown. This is what I don't understand about this uproar. The word "markdown" has been used in multiple products and offshoots from Markdown, and no one has said a peep. What makes "Standard Markdown" different from the existing products? "Comment Markdown"? "Code flavored Markdown"? "Startup Flavored Markdown"? "Startup Markdown"? "Standard Flavored Markdown"? "A Standardized Implementation of Markdown"? "Specced Markdown"? "The Standard Dialect of Markdown"? Are any of these acceptable? Why do these folks, alone, need to remove the word "markdown" from their name? And is it specifically the word "Standard", or perhaps the lack of a "flavored"-type word, that is grinding gears?

jader201 12y ago
> And is it specifically the word "Standard", or perhaps the lack of a "flavored"-type word, that is grinding gears? I think this is it. I think Gruber sees "Standard" as implying ownership or original or universal [1]. I think naming it another "flavor" would have been completely fine with him [2] [3]. [1] https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507562824311508992 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507562824311508992 [2] https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507556483559858176 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507556483559858176 [3] https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507566934746226688 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507566934746226688
alphang 12y ago
https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507570504279293953 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507570504279293953
pyre 12y ago
Apparently (at least some) people are claiming that it's the "Standard" that is 'offensive,' and not "Markdown." It just seems like a case-study in splitting hairs though. The real issue boils down to: 1. This is a project designed to become the new Markdown spec, thereby wrestling control of "Markdown" from Gruber. 2. This project was developed in-concert with most of the big sites that use Markdown (StackExchange, Reddit, Github), and therefore has enough weight behind it to push it as the defacto standard. 3. The name "Standard Markdown" is generic enough to possibly cause brand-confusion whereas "MultiMarkdown" and "Github Flavored Markdown" come off as offshoots of The Original Markdown(tm). Personally, I think that Gruber's mostly upset that this has the potential to become the defacto Markdown while still using Markdown in the name. If (e.g.) MultiMarkdown was in a similar position, he would probably be pitching the same fit. [ I really don't like the name "Standard Markdown" in general. I prefer a suggestion I saw elsewhere, "Common Markdown." ]
ksherlock 12y ago
The BSD license argument (it was also brought up in the other discussion) seems a little bit strange. Markdown.pl, the perl script is BSD licensed, but the markdown specification (if it existed) isn't BSD licensed.
krick 12y ago
Not that I really care, and sure I don't think that discussing licenses and stuff can be valid or meaningful whatsoever, but I understand why somebody can think of it as a problem and why they can tell a difference between "Github flavored Markdown" and "Standard Markdown". First off, I'm quite sure that if you own some rights on something called "Markdown" and you wan't to abuse somebody, who uses name of your product as part of their own product, then in a battle of lawyers and all these nasty things you can do so, because ultimately it's your right to do so. You invented this stuff and in the license you chose for it it's clearly stated that you don't want somebody else to use its name. So the reason nobody tries to sue somebody for it is that nobody really cares. We are all normal people, not some lawyers after all. If somebody uses name of my product without my written permission, but I don't think it's done with bad intentions and it doesn't hurt me — why should I care? It's like we are living in a slightly more friendly world than all these people in corporations. So both product names derived from "Markdown" may break some permissions, but only one of them makes somebody care of it. So what's the difference between them? I find it pretty understandable. Say you invented ice-cream and you have the same careless approach to use of its name. It's "Open source product". It becomes popular. So when some guy starts making "cherry ice-cream" you don't think it's bad — it's not the same product that you make, but it clearly resembles it, so people understand what they are going to consume. And you don't mind it, such a nice guy you are. Some other guy living in Hampshire starts selling stuff that he names "Hampshire ice-cream", which you can think is also ok. After all it's pretty natural, to call "ice-cream" something, that very much resembles that very stuff widely known as "ice-cream", but his ice-cream might be somewhat different from yours so it's fine to give it distinctive name. But then somebody starts making one of his own, which he calls "Real Ice-cream". It's also "Open Source" but its recipe is very detailed and everything that doesn't comply it cannot be called "Real Ice-cream". But "real" isn't only name of his product, it's some natural word and from now on it's implying that every other ice-cream recipe in the world — including your own, the original one — isn't "real". With "Standard Markdown" it's even worse, as "standard" is pretty clear word in the tech-world. And now when some bunch of guys try to "standartize" something that isn't ultimately their it's only natural that somebody doesn't like it. It's not like markdown is born yesterday, it's widely known thing and it has nothing to do with all these ambitious guys like codinghorror. If you wrote your own markdown compiler it was just some markdown compiler. You like how it works, maybe somebody likes it too, you don't really want to change anything. But from now on it's some non-standard markdown compiler. Must be pretty offensive for somebody.

by pkamb 12y ago

jader201 12y ago

> And is it specifically the word "Standard", or perhaps the lack of a "flavored"-type word, that is grinding gears? I think this is it. I think Gruber sees "Standard" as implying ownership or original or universal [1]. I think naming it another "flavor" would have been completely fine with him [2] [3]. [1] https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507562824311508992 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507562824311508992 [2] https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507556483559858176 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507556483559858176 [3] https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507566934746226688 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507566934746226688

alphang 12y ago

https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507570504279293953 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507570504279293953

pyre 12y ago

Apparently (at least some) people are claiming that it's the "Standard" that is 'offensive,' and not "Markdown." It just seems like a case-study in splitting hairs though. The real issue boils down to: 1. This is a project designed to become the new Markdown spec, thereby wrestling control of "Markdown" from Gruber. 2. This project was developed in-concert with most of the big sites that use Markdown (StackExchange, Reddit, Github), and therefore has enough weight behind it to push it as the defacto standard. 3. The name "Standard Markdown" is generic enough to possibly cause brand-confusion whereas "MultiMarkdown" and "Github Flavored Markdown" come off as offshoots of The Original Markdown(tm). Personally, I think that Gruber's mostly upset that this has the potential to become the defacto Markdown while still using Markdown in the name. If (e.g.) MultiMarkdown was in a similar position, he would probably be pitching the same fit. [ I really don't like the name "Standard Markdown" in general. I prefer a suggestion I saw elsewhere, "Common Markdown." ]

ksherlock 12y ago

The BSD license argument (it was also brought up in the other discussion) seems a little bit strange. Markdown.pl, the perl script is BSD licensed, but the markdown specification (if it existed) isn't BSD licensed.

krick 12y ago

Not that I really care, and sure I don't think that discussing licenses and stuff can be valid or meaningful whatsoever, but I understand why somebody can think of it as a problem and why they can tell a difference between "Github flavored Markdown" and "Standard Markdown". First off, I'm quite sure that if you own some rights on something called "Markdown" and you wan't to abuse somebody, who uses name of your product as part of their own product, then in a battle of lawyers and all these nasty things you can do so, because ultimately it's your right to do so. You invented this stuff and in the license you chose for it it's clearly stated that you don't want somebody else to use its name. So the reason nobody tries to sue somebody for it is that nobody really cares. We are all normal people, not some lawyers after all. If somebody uses name of my product without my written permission, but I don't think it's done with bad intentions and it doesn't hurt me — why should I care? It's like we are living in a slightly more friendly world than all these people in corporations. So both product names derived from "Markdown" may break some permissions, but only one of them makes somebody care of it. So what's the difference between them? I find it pretty understandable. Say you invented ice-cream and you have the same careless approach to use of its name. It's "Open source product". It becomes popular. So when some guy starts making "cherry ice-cream" you don't think it's bad — it's not the same product that you make, but it clearly resembles it, so people understand what they are going to consume. And you don't mind it, such a nice guy you are. Some other guy living in Hampshire starts selling stuff that he names "Hampshire ice-cream", which you can think is also ok. After all it's pretty natural, to call "ice-cream" something, that very much resembles that very stuff widely known as "ice-cream", but his ice-cream might be somewhat different from yours so it's fine to give it distinctive name. But then somebody starts making one of his own, which he calls "Real Ice-cream". It's also "Open Source" but its recipe is very detailed and everything that doesn't comply it cannot be called "Real Ice-cream". But "real" isn't only name of his product, it's some natural word and from now on it's implying that every other ice-cream recipe in the world — including your own, the original one — isn't "real". With "Standard Markdown" it's even worse, as "standard" is pretty clear word in the tech-world. And now when some bunch of guys try to "standartize" something that isn't ultimately their it's only natural that somebody doesn't like it. It's not like markdown is born yesterday, it's widely known thing and it has nothing to do with all these ambitious guys like codinghorror. If you wrote your own markdown compiler it was just some markdown compiler. You like how it works, maybe somebody likes it too, you don't really want to change anything. But from now on it's some non-standard markdown compiler. Must be pretty offensive for somebody.