5 ms·

I may be mistaken, but isn't the problem with the title containing the word "Markdown" and therefore implying "Better Markdown"? And not with the specific adjec

I may be mistaken, but isn't the problem with the title containing the word "Markdown" and therefore implying "Better Markdown"? And not with the specific adjective before Markdown?

dragonwriter 12y ago
Given that Gruber gave "Strict Markdown" and "Pedantic Markdown" as examples of names that he would "probably" be okay with, apparently not.
- NotOscarWilde 12y ago
  Are you sure that was meant in earnest? After all, the license [1] is clear: 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. Plus, if somebody names "specific prior written permission", saying "we haven't heard back since last night so it is okay" seems dishonest to me. [1] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license
  - chewxy 12y ago
    Explain to me then why Gruber was okay with Github-flavoured Markdown?
    - davidcelis 12y ago
      https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507661953498890241 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507661953498890241
    - mythz 12y ago
      Gruber said in the talk show that it was a flavour of Markdown that had extensions specifically suited for Developers which had elements that wouldn't make sense to have everywhere.
    - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
      Dunno but it doesn't even matter. You can enforce your copyright whenever you want, that's the rules of the USA. You don't have to enforce it all the time if you don't want to.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        Names aren't protected by copyright, and its far from clear that a spec of this type is a non-fair-use derivative work such that it would require a license from the copyright holder of markdown.pl in the first place.
        kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
        The license only applies to derivatives of the markdown.pl code. The spec describes a "reverse engineered" implementation that is partially interoperable with the original but isn't actually derived from it. Reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is a legal activity in the US.
  - wtetzner 12y ago
    It's not obvious what counts as being derived from the software.
  - spankalee 12y ago
    Have all the other Markdowns received specific prior written permission?
freditup 12y ago
It's hard to understand from Jeff's post (and possibly John Gruber's email) why the name 'Standard Markdown' was infuriating. But I see little reason to think that 'Common Markdown' would be any better, other than the fact that 'Common' doesn't imply quite as much that this is the correct markdown version as 'Standard' does.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  To be fair, any name that doesn't imply somehow that it is indeed a better Markdown wouldn't do: Atwood and co are trying to make this new version the default. "Hello, your project FooBar is cool, but it is badly specified, and your reference implementation is buggy. Because of that, we see many flavours of FooBar, each incompatible in some subtle way. "We would like to make another flavour, with a tighter specification, and a less buggy reference implementation. Ideally, this would become the default flavour. "What name would be acceptable for this?" I have a strong feeling that Gruber just want his version of Markdown to stay the default, because he's the original author, dammit! He's probably not okay with the project itself, and would stop it if he could. I think the real reason why he finds "standard" so infuriating, is because he knows that with such a name, this flavour may actually catch on. Which may be a bad thing for http://daringfireball.net/ http://daringfireball.net/ I don't know.

I may be mistaken, but isn't the problem with the title containing the word "Markdown" and therefore implying "Better Markdown"? And not with the specific adjective before Markdown?

dragonwriter 12y ago

Given that Gruber gave "Strict Markdown" and "Pedantic Markdown" as examples of names that he would "probably" be okay with, apparently not.

NotOscarWilde 12y ago
Are you sure that was meant in earnest? After all, the license [1] is clear: 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. Plus, if somebody names "specific prior written permission", saying "we haven't heard back since last night so it is okay" seems dishonest to me. [1] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license
- chewxy 12y ago
  Explain to me then why Gruber was okay with Github-flavoured Markdown?
  - davidcelis 12y ago
    https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507661953498890241 https://twitter.com/gruber/status/507661953498890241
  - mythz 12y ago
    Gruber said in the talk show that it was a flavour of Markdown that had extensions specifically suited for Developers which had elements that wouldn't make sense to have everywhere.
  - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
    Dunno but it doesn't even matter. You can enforce your copyright whenever you want, that's the rules of the USA. You don't have to enforce it all the time if you don't want to.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      Names aren't protected by copyright, and its far from clear that a spec of this type is a non-fair-use derivative work such that it would require a license from the copyright holder of markdown.pl in the first place.
      - kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
        The license only applies to derivatives of the markdown.pl code. The spec describes a "reverse engineered" implementation that is partially interoperable with the original but isn't actually derived from it. Reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is a legal activity in the US.
- wtetzner 12y ago
  It's not obvious what counts as being derived from the software.
- spankalee 12y ago
  Have all the other Markdowns received specific prior written permission?

freditup 12y ago

It's hard to understand from Jeff's post (and possibly John Gruber's email) why the name 'Standard Markdown' was infuriating. But I see little reason to think that 'Common Markdown' would be any better, other than the fact that 'Common' doesn't imply quite as much that this is the correct markdown version as 'Standard' does.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
To be fair, any name that doesn't imply somehow that it is indeed a better Markdown wouldn't do: Atwood and co are trying to make this new version the default. "Hello, your project FooBar is cool, but it is badly specified, and your reference implementation is buggy. Because of that, we see many flavours of FooBar, each incompatible in some subtle way. "We would like to make another flavour, with a tighter specification, and a less buggy reference implementation. Ideally, this would become the default flavour. "What name would be acceptable for this?" I have a strong feeling that Gruber just want his version of Markdown to stay the default, because he's the original author, dammit! He's probably not okay with the project itself, and would stop it if he could. I think the real reason why he finds "standard" so infuriating, is because he knows that with such a name, this flavour may actually catch on. Which may be a bad thing for http://daringfireball.net/ http://daringfireball.net/ I don't know.