3 ms·
I've thought for a long while that Jeff Atwood was a bit egotistical - I've mostly kept it to myself, but this really takes the cake. There's a few key things
by josephwegner 12y ago
I've thought for a long while that Jeff Atwood was a bit egotistical - I've mostly kept it to myself, but this really takes the cake.
There's a few key things you need to have to properly apologize[1]:
- a detailed account of the situation
- acknowledgement of the hurt or damage done
- taking responsibility for the situation
- recognition of your role in the event
- a statement of regret
- asking for forgiveness
- a promise that it won't happen again
- a form of restitution whenever possible
Most of those things aren't there. And, most notably, Jeff spent the majority of this post explaining why he wasn't at fault. That may be a fair opinion, but keep your ego to yourself - don't post an apology if you don't mean it, and don't act like this fulfills Gruber's request just because you put it on the internet.
Furthermore, Gruber is right. He has a license on the name Markdown[2] - the name is not up for grabs. And the name "Standard Markdown" very directly implies that the rest of the "flavors" of Markdown are wrong. I would say "Common Markdown" is no better - it implies that all other flavors of Markdown are uncommon. If Jeff really had any intention of making things right, the least he could have done was wait more than a day to hear back from Gruber - it's not like this is really a time-sensitive matter.
[1] http://www.perfectapology.com/how-to-say-im-sorry.html http://www.perfectapology.com/how-to-say-im-sorry.html
[2] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license
- hoodoof 12y agoYes I can see you've carried a passive aggressive resentment of Jeff for a while and now you've found a way to comprehensively express it thank you. Even with footnotes to back up your correctness. This entire topic just isn't important.
- voyou 12y ago"He has a license on the name Markdown" No, he doesn't. He has copyright on something, and he provides licenses to that copyright material on certain conditions, which include the use of the name "Markdown". But if you're not using his copyright, you don't have to get permission from him, so what he thinks about your use of the term "Markdown" isn't legally relevant.
- mindcrime 12y agoso what he thinks about your use of the term "Markdown" isn't legally relevant. Not necessarily. He would have had a trademark on Markdown at some point (you don't even need to register a trademark to have one, IIRC, trademarks are established simply by use). So unless he's lost that trademark due to non-enforcement (which is a possibility) then what he thinks would matter if he felt the urge to litigate it. But legalities aside, from a moral perspective, I believe that people have an obligation to consider the wishes of the person who created and named Markdown originally.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> He would have had a trademark on Markdown at some point (you don't even need to register a trademark to have one, IIRC, trademarks are established simply by use). They are established by bona fide use as a trademark (a mark of origin of a specific product) in the ordinary course of commerce. Its not clear to me that Markdown was ever a trademark, and that if it was it hasn't been either abandoned (not using a mark in commerce can lose it) or lost through the term being allowed to become generic.
- shard972 12y agoHow to be mad over nothing 101.
- hotnuts 12y agoNot nothing. His Markdown page got 3.3 million page views last year. That's something worth protecting from his perspective (I suppose).