5 ms·

The "Standard Markdown" name really did feel like a grab for ownership. Legally I'd imagine it was fine, but it wasn't very nice. Gruber was apparently unrespo

by kemayo 12y ago

The "Standard Markdown" name really did feel like a grab for ownership. Legally I'd imagine it was fine, but it wasn't very nice. Gruber was apparently unresponsive to them when they asked about it, and then was publicly cranky. So neither side looks great. But I'd say Gruber feels more sympathetic to me.

thatswrong0 12y ago
I don't know. It seems like "Standard Markdown" was created out of love for Markdown (2 years of work..) and wanting to create a solid, standardized foundation for it for the future. No matter what they called it, I bet it would have been called out as an ownership grab because the core of what they're doing: formalizing Markdown, something not created by them and something that the creator clearly doesn't want formalized. But it's pretty clear that there's a need for it at this point.. the amount of work and coordination that went into it almost proves the point. The fact that it's used everywhere certainly does. It can be pretty hard to do the right thing in a lot of cases without ruffling some feathers. That's how I see this whole situation.
- kemayo 12y ago
  I quite agree that they're doing something useful. I think they have good motivations, and it makes a lot of sense for the big Markdown-using sites to standardize on a particular Markdown dialect. I do disagree that there'd have been a kerfuffle over this if they'd picked a completely new name, though. I'm sure there'd have been some people who said "Markdown was just fine for me" and grumbled, but the widespread debate that Standard Markdown caused? Unlikely. Given that the people involved have enough clout to cause widespread use of this format regardless of the name, picking a name they knew would be contentious based on their previous communication with Gruber seems like an unfortunate distraction from something new and useful.
Kalium 12y ago
Grabbing for "ownership" of an effectively abandoned project after two years of work doesn't seem unreasonable to me. They're trying to take up an old project and continue development from where it left off.
- kemayo 12y ago
  I absolutely think they're doing a good thing here. But the normal etiquette if you're taking over an abandoned open source project and can't get in touch with the original author is to change the name. Plus, of course, in this case it's not actually abandoned. It's in the state Gruber apparently wants it to be in, and others disagree. That changes the situation noticeably.
  - oblio 12y ago
    Well, I'm sorry, but in my book if you make something Open Source, stay as the maintainer for a long time yet fix no bugs or make no improvements, don't register the trademark AND publicly complain when people try to improve the situation, you're like a parent who doesn't treat his child well. And in most societies I know of, that's a valid reason to lose your rights as a parent. Harsh comparison, but I feel it reflect the current situation well.
    - kemayo 12y ago
      That's a sillily emotionally-loaded comparison. An open source project is hardly a child, neglected or otherwise. The proper course of action here is a fork, which has no equivalent in your analogy. Gruber's Markdown remains as he likes it, under the name it's already widely known as. The new Markdown-based language picks a suitably disambiguated name and becomes what its maintainers want it to be.
      - oblio 12y ago
        Not all forks pick "suitably disambiguated" names. In fact most hostile forks actually picked a name that was making fun of the original. Or just piggy backed the "brand". The only cases where this didn't happen was where trademarks were involved (OpenOffice.org, Hudson), and even those cases might imply pointing fingers (open has far more restrictive connotations in the software world than libre). And in this case I do hope that the hostile fork actually becomes what it aims for: standard/common and basically makes everyone forget about Markdown.pl.
djrogers 12y ago
"Gruber was apparently unresponsive to them when they asked about it" They didn't mention that they'd be calling it Standard Markdown when they emailed him about it - and he was on vacation when it happened... I think it's great if they want to move the idea forward, but if he wants them to come up with their own name (which he very publicly said before this all happened) then that would have been the right thing to do...

by kemayo 12y ago

thatswrong0 12y ago

I don't know. It seems like "Standard Markdown" was created out of love for Markdown (2 years of work..) and wanting to create a solid, standardized foundation for it for the future. No matter what they called it, I bet it would have been called out as an ownership grab because the core of what they're doing: formalizing Markdown, something not created by them and something that the creator clearly doesn't want formalized. But it's pretty clear that there's a need for it at this point.. the amount of work and coordination that went into it almost proves the point. The fact that it's used everywhere certainly does. It can be pretty hard to do the right thing in a lot of cases without ruffling some feathers. That's how I see this whole situation.

kemayo 12y ago
I quite agree that they're doing something useful. I think they have good motivations, and it makes a lot of sense for the big Markdown-using sites to standardize on a particular Markdown dialect. I do disagree that there'd have been a kerfuffle over this if they'd picked a completely new name, though. I'm sure there'd have been some people who said "Markdown was just fine for me" and grumbled, but the widespread debate that Standard Markdown caused? Unlikely. Given that the people involved have enough clout to cause widespread use of this format regardless of the name, picking a name they knew would be contentious based on their previous communication with Gruber seems like an unfortunate distraction from something new and useful.

Kalium 12y ago

Grabbing for "ownership" of an effectively abandoned project after two years of work doesn't seem unreasonable to me. They're trying to take up an old project and continue development from where it left off.

kemayo 12y ago
I absolutely think they're doing a good thing here. But the normal etiquette if you're taking over an abandoned open source project and can't get in touch with the original author is to change the name. Plus, of course, in this case it's not actually abandoned. It's in the state Gruber apparently wants it to be in, and others disagree. That changes the situation noticeably.
- oblio 12y ago
  Well, I'm sorry, but in my book if you make something Open Source, stay as the maintainer for a long time yet fix no bugs or make no improvements, don't register the trademark AND publicly complain when people try to improve the situation, you're like a parent who doesn't treat his child well. And in most societies I know of, that's a valid reason to lose your rights as a parent. Harsh comparison, but I feel it reflect the current situation well.
  - kemayo 12y ago
    That's a sillily emotionally-loaded comparison. An open source project is hardly a child, neglected or otherwise. The proper course of action here is a fork, which has no equivalent in your analogy. Gruber's Markdown remains as he likes it, under the name it's already widely known as. The new Markdown-based language picks a suitably disambiguated name and becomes what its maintainers want it to be.
    - oblio 12y ago
      Not all forks pick "suitably disambiguated" names. In fact most hostile forks actually picked a name that was making fun of the original. Or just piggy backed the "brand". The only cases where this didn't happen was where trademarks were involved (OpenOffice.org, Hudson), and even those cases might imply pointing fingers (open has far more restrictive connotations in the software world than libre). And in this case I do hope that the hostile fork actually becomes what it aims for: standard/common and basically makes everyone forget about Markdown.pl.

djrogers 12y ago

"Gruber was apparently unresponsive to them when they asked about it" They didn't mention that they'd be calling it Standard Markdown when they emailed him about it - and he was on vacation when it happened... I think it's great if they want to move the idea forward, but if he wants them to come up with their own name (which he very publicly said before this all happened) then that would have been the right thing to do...