5 ms·

Without getting a response, it still is in violation of the license, correct? http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/pro

Without getting a response, it still is in violation of the license, correct? http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license I bet Gruber still won't be happy, but I consider this issue squashed.

chasing 12y ago
> In his email John graciously indicated that he would "probably" approve a name like "Strict Markdown" or "Pedantic Markdown".
- grayclhn 12y ago
  I obviously don't know the context in the email, but those are both slightly pejorative. "Common" isn't. "Committee-driven Markdown" might have worked :).
cygx 12y ago
it still is in violation of the license, correct That's arguable. More elaborate software licenses define terms like 'derivative work', but BSD-style licenses generally don't. Do open specifications count as 'products derived from this software'? There's obviously no code being shared. Legally, it's probably more of a trademark issue, and trademarks can be lost, in particular if they are not enforced and lose their distinctiveness.
- ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
  It's not a BSD License, it's styled on it. But anyway, all of this has nothing to do with code/specifications/philosophy. It's a copyright issue.
  - cygx 12y ago
    And if trademarks are not enforced, they are lost. Anyway, I clarified my post.
- Nick-Craver 12y ago
  Is Markdown actually trademarked? It's beed used in similar fashion for years and I've never seen a trademark referred to anywhere.
  - cygx 12y ago
    I don't know the legal situation in the US, but you generally do not need to register a trademark. It certainly helps if you do so, but I believe it's actually not a requirement in many jurisdictions.
kmontrose 12y ago
After thinking on this for a while, I personally doubt the license applies. Most importantly, it applies to the software (ie. the Perl script; or a compiled version of it) not the "name" or "invention" of Markdown. To own the name, he needs a trademark; to own the invention, a patent. Since Standard/Common Markdown isn't a derivative of the Perl script, the license itself probably doesn't apply. If he does claim a trademark (registered or otherwise) he hasn't defended it at all for going on ten years now. It's really hard to imagine a court not finding it to be a generic trademark as with Kleenex or Aspirin. I doubt very much he claims a patent, he's way past any grace period in which to apply for one subsequent to his initial disclosure. This is one of those "ultimately, up to the courts"-things though. Gruber certainly has standing to bring suit if he wants to. Disclaimer: I am a Stack Exchange employee. I have not been involved in any of the (now Common) Markdown standardization proceedings. I was aware that they were underway, having read Jeff's earlier blog posts.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  As a side note, Bayer lost the trademark on Aspirin (along with Heroin) as a punishment for WWI. But that only applies to some countries. In other countries, it's still trademarked. Heroin doesn't seem to be trademarked at all anymore.

chasing 12y ago

> In his email John graciously indicated that he would "probably" approve a name like "Strict Markdown" or "Pedantic Markdown".

grayclhn 12y ago
I obviously don't know the context in the email, but those are both slightly pejorative. "Common" isn't. "Committee-driven Markdown" might have worked :).

cygx 12y ago

it still is in violation of the license, correct That's arguable. More elaborate software licenses define terms like 'derivative work', but BSD-style licenses generally don't. Do open specifications count as 'products derived from this software'? There's obviously no code being shared. Legally, it's probably more of a trademark issue, and trademarks can be lost, in particular if they are not enforced and lose their distinctiveness.

ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
It's not a BSD License, it's styled on it. But anyway, all of this has nothing to do with code/specifications/philosophy. It's a copyright issue.
- cygx 12y ago
  And if trademarks are not enforced, they are lost. Anyway, I clarified my post.
Nick-Craver 12y ago
Is Markdown actually trademarked? It's beed used in similar fashion for years and I've never seen a trademark referred to anywhere.
- cygx 12y ago
  I don't know the legal situation in the US, but you generally do not need to register a trademark. It certainly helps if you do so, but I believe it's actually not a requirement in many jurisdictions.

kmontrose 12y ago

After thinking on this for a while, I personally doubt the license applies. Most importantly, it applies to the software (ie. the Perl script; or a compiled version of it) not the "name" or "invention" of Markdown. To own the name, he needs a trademark; to own the invention, a patent. Since Standard/Common Markdown isn't a derivative of the Perl script, the license itself probably doesn't apply. If he does claim a trademark (registered or otherwise) he hasn't defended it at all for going on ten years now. It's really hard to imagine a court not finding it to be a generic trademark as with Kleenex or Aspirin. I doubt very much he claims a patent, he's way past any grace period in which to apply for one subsequent to his initial disclosure. This is one of those "ultimately, up to the courts"-things though. Gruber certainly has standing to bring suit if he wants to. Disclaimer: I am a Stack Exchange employee. I have not been involved in any of the (now Common) Markdown standardization proceedings. I was aware that they were underway, having read Jeff's earlier blog posts.

MichaelGG 12y ago
As a side note, Bayer lost the trademark on Aspirin (along with Heroin) as a punishment for WWI. But that only applies to some countries. In other countries, it's still trademarked. Heroin doesn't seem to be trademarked at all anymore.