There are really two things in the code. There is the spec about Markdown and two implementations that conform to the spec, written in C and JavaScript. The fo

There are really two things in the code. There is the spec about Markdown and two implementations that conform to the spec, written in C and JavaScript. The former is a standard spec and test suite about derivatives of Markdown, some of which have basis in implicit and explicit blessing to use the name "Markdown." I'm not sure claim to the name makes sense in the spec definition is a valid claim, though. It would be like requiring every author to specifically request official blessings to write about trademarked (registered or not) subjects. That'd be silly as it falls well within fair use of the name. The name "Standard" or to a lesser degree "Common" complicate ownership, certainly. I think I would have preferred the verb instead: "Standardized." Regardless, "Markdown" is the subject of the spec, not necessarily the product. The latter implementations, however, probably shouldn't use the name Markdown in them at all if Gruber doesn't want them to use it. They really don't need to exist in the spec. They're just examples of valid interpreters. Spin them off and rename them, leaving the spec and tests. What's clear to me in all of this is there is value in portable markdown that will parse the same across applications and services, whether we call it markdown or not. The drama of it all is amusing, in any case.