5 ms·

* We didn't get a response so we assume its OK Seems like a pretty big assumption to me. Good change though

by bobbles 12y ago

vulf 12y ago
Based on the history of communication with Gruber, they should probably assume no reply means it's NOT okay... but then no progress would be made, ever.
Kylekramer 12y ago
Probably mistaken assumption given Gruber's "new syntax, new name" request: https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507651498692849665 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507651498692849665 Personally I think it is a fair compromise.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> * We didn't get a response so we assume its OK No such assumption is stated. They decided to honor Gruber's specific requests (stop using the Standard Markup name, kill the domain and don't redirect it, and apology) and, as a courtesy offered him the opportunity to provide feedback on a list of alternative names to use instead of the Standard Markup name. They never suggested that they took Gruber's silence as equivalent to consent, more that the silence (combined with the general shape of the names he had indicated would probably be acceptable) -- given that they aren't going to cancel the project, and they are going to immediately honor his request to stop using the old name -- leaves them no choice but to choose the new name without further input from Gruber.
- ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
  It still has "Markdown" in the title though. Gruber's silence is not going to be considered equivalent to consent by a court if it ever gets there. It really has to stick to the letter of the license, or its invalid. I'm assuming its trademarked though, not sure about any of the details.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Gruber's silence is not going to be considered equivalent to consent by a court if it ever gets there. I don't see what the formerly "Standard Markdown" project has done to accomodate Gruber as something done because they accepted that he had a legal claim that they were required to comply with, I see it as something that they did because they thought he made a demand that, whether or not it was mandatory, they felt it was reasonable and appropriate to comply with to the extent reasonably practical without tying things up for the project in an open-ended way. Its not clear to me that Gruber has any basis for a claim in court here: 1) Its not clear to me that the license applies at all, in that its not clear that writing an spec that abstracts and regularizes the common behavior of several programs (which may or may not be all legally derivative of the one at issue) is a non-fair-use derivative work of the program at issue under copyright law, such that a license for that program would be required, 2) Further, its not clear to me that, aside from the copyright license on markdown.pl, that markdown was ever a trademark and, if it was, that it hasn't been either abandoned or genericized. Of course, Gruber can sue and try to establish any basis for preventing the use of the name that he'd like.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
      It's clear that he has a copyright, since he's the original creator. All computer software is subject to copyright. He can even have been said to effectively police it when he ok'd github flavored markdown so he didn't abandon it or weaken the copyright. Trademarks depend, I dunno the details. Knowing that would help. The actual question is whether Markdown has indeed become so generic in programming that it no longer holds a copyright. I think, yeah, maybe, since there is a standards movement going on.
      - grayclhn 12y ago
        They are in no way using his software. This is a combination of the syntax chosen by several independent markdown implementations written in several different languages (off the top of my head: Haskell (pandoc), Ruby (GitHub), probably Python (Reddit), maybe others). I don't think many people actually use Gruber's perl code.
- jkrems 12y ago
  The license requires explicit written permission by Gruber before using "Markdown". It's not fuzzy at all about this point. He didn't okay any name like X, he said he might approve of a name similar to X. That's not permission of anything yet.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The license requires explicit written permission by Gruber before using "Markdown". So? Even if the license is relevant to the legality of the use of the name, that has no bearing on whether or not the Common Markdown folks have assumed that Gruber's silence means consent -- they could simply disagree on the legal relevance of the license, and not see Gruber's consent as required.
  - cygx 12y ago
    Copyright law doesn't apply, and Gruber has probably lost any trademark rights when he failed to shut down the various Markdown flavours. I'm not a lawyer and also not especially familiar with the laws in the US, but my guess would be that legally, he might not have a case. Of course there are also questions of morality, but who cares about that ;)
  - frowaway001 12y ago
    They are neither using Gruber's code nor his spec, so his license doesn't matter to them.
spankalee 12y ago
Seems reasonable actually, based on his implicit approval of all the other Markdown project names.
ufo 12y ago
I didn't get that impression: > We haven't heard back after replying last night, and I'm not sure we ever will, so in the interest of moving ahead and avoiding conflict, we're immediately renaming the project to Common Markdown.

* We didn't get a response so we assume its OK Seems like a pretty big assumption to me. Good change though

by bobbles 12y ago

* We didn't get a response so we assume its OK Seems like a pretty big assumption to me. Good change though

vulf 12y ago

Based on the history of communication with Gruber, they should probably assume no reply means it's NOT okay... but then no progress would be made, ever.

Kylekramer 12y ago

Probably mistaken assumption given Gruber's "new syntax, new name" request: https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507651498692849665 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507651498692849665 Personally I think it is a fair compromise.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> * We didn't get a response so we assume its OK No such assumption is stated. They decided to honor Gruber's specific requests (stop using the Standard Markup name, kill the domain and don't redirect it, and apology) and, as a courtesy offered him the opportunity to provide feedback on a list of alternative names to use instead of the Standard Markup name. They never suggested that they took Gruber's silence as equivalent to consent, more that the silence (combined with the general shape of the names he had indicated would probably be acceptable) -- given that they aren't going to cancel the project, and they are going to immediately honor his request to stop using the old name -- leaves them no choice but to choose the new name without further input from Gruber.

ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
It still has "Markdown" in the title though. Gruber's silence is not going to be considered equivalent to consent by a court if it ever gets there. It really has to stick to the letter of the license, or its invalid. I'm assuming its trademarked though, not sure about any of the details.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Gruber's silence is not going to be considered equivalent to consent by a court if it ever gets there. I don't see what the formerly "Standard Markdown" project has done to accomodate Gruber as something done because they accepted that he had a legal claim that they were required to comply with, I see it as something that they did because they thought he made a demand that, whether or not it was mandatory, they felt it was reasonable and appropriate to comply with to the extent reasonably practical without tying things up for the project in an open-ended way. Its not clear to me that Gruber has any basis for a claim in court here: 1) Its not clear to me that the license applies at all, in that its not clear that writing an spec that abstracts and regularizes the common behavior of several programs (which may or may not be all legally derivative of the one at issue) is a non-fair-use derivative work of the program at issue under copyright law, such that a license for that program would be required, 2) Further, its not clear to me that, aside from the copyright license on markdown.pl, that markdown was ever a trademark and, if it was, that it hasn't been either abandoned or genericized. Of course, Gruber can sue and try to establish any basis for preventing the use of the name that he'd like.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
    It's clear that he has a copyright, since he's the original creator. All computer software is subject to copyright. He can even have been said to effectively police it when he ok'd github flavored markdown so he didn't abandon it or weaken the copyright. Trademarks depend, I dunno the details. Knowing that would help. The actual question is whether Markdown has indeed become so generic in programming that it no longer holds a copyright. I think, yeah, maybe, since there is a standards movement going on.
    - grayclhn 12y ago
      They are in no way using his software. This is a combination of the syntax chosen by several independent markdown implementations written in several different languages (off the top of my head: Haskell (pandoc), Ruby (GitHub), probably Python (Reddit), maybe others). I don't think many people actually use Gruber's perl code.
jkrems 12y ago
The license requires explicit written permission by Gruber before using "Markdown". It's not fuzzy at all about this point. He didn't okay any name like X, he said he might approve of a name similar to X. That's not permission of anything yet.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The license requires explicit written permission by Gruber before using "Markdown". So? Even if the license is relevant to the legality of the use of the name, that has no bearing on whether or not the Common Markdown folks have assumed that Gruber's silence means consent -- they could simply disagree on the legal relevance of the license, and not see Gruber's consent as required.
- cygx 12y ago
  Copyright law doesn't apply, and Gruber has probably lost any trademark rights when he failed to shut down the various Markdown flavours. I'm not a lawyer and also not especially familiar with the laws in the US, but my guess would be that legally, he might not have a case. Of course there are also questions of morality, but who cares about that ;)
- frowaway001 12y ago
  They are neither using Gruber's code nor his spec, so his license doesn't matter to them.

spankalee 12y ago

Seems reasonable actually, based on his implicit approval of all the other Markdown project names.

ufo 12y ago

I didn't get that impression: > We haven't heard back after replying last night, and I'm not sure we ever will, so in the interest of moving ahead and avoiding conflict, we're immediately renaming the project to Common Markdown.