5 ms·

Are they no longer able to have "markdown" in the name? The name isn't rubygems-bad, but it's not exactly intuitive.

by kevinqi 12y ago

2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
The original license says: 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. http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license The name change may have been done as a courtesy rather than for legal reasons, but apparently Gruber doesn't wish to endorse any forks. There was even a kerfuffle on Twitter.
- eslaught 12y ago
  This must have been done out of politeness and not out of legal reasons. I don't think Gruber has any legal foothold with respect to the name here. The license you quote is essentially based on copyright. But copyright deals with creative works, not names; names are the domain of trademark. In the US at least, copyright is automatic; trademarks are not. You must explicitly register trademarks in order to have any legal enforcement power over a name. Has Gruber registered for trademark in the US? I kind of doubt it. I am not a lawyer, but this smells like something he just wrote in the contract because he could, not because it actually can be enforced as such. (Note: This is separate from the discussion of whether it was polite for them to use the name Markdown. I generally agree that it is more polite for this project to distance themselves from the original markdown given that Gruber doesn't want to work with them.)
  - dogecoinbase 12y ago
    Incorrect -- there is a doctrine of common law trademark: http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426712 http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426712
    - eslaught 12y ago
      Still, the level of protection for common law trademark is not the same as when registered. From http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts.pdf http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts.pdf 1. "Common law rights exist only for the specific area where the mark is used" (vs registering gives you "a legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark nationwide"). 2. Registration grants you "the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court". (It's not obvious to me how this differs from common law protections, but that's what the document says.) Also mentioned in the document is that if you fail to defend you rights and the trademark enters common usage (e.g. "escalator" being the canonical example), then you lose protection under the law. At any rate, the point is, this is trademark law, not copyright, so don't assume what you know of copyright law applies (or that your licenses which are written to protect copyrights will adequately address trademark issues).
  - nullary 12y ago
    There seems to be no relevant "MarkDown" trademark registered in the US. All the results I found were retail related: https://www.dropbox.com/s/su3ka2jgffuaxfe/Screenshot%202014-09-09%2012.08.25.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/su3ka2jgffuaxfe/Screenshot%202014-...

Are they no longer able to have "markdown" in the name? The name isn't rubygems-bad, but it's not exactly intuitive.

by kevinqi 12y ago

Are they no longer able to have "markdown" in the name? The name isn't rubygems-bad, but it's not exactly intuitive.

The original license says: 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. http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license The name change may have been done as a courtesy rather than for legal reasons, but apparently Gruber doesn't wish to endorse any forks. There was even a kerfuffle on Twitter.

eslaught 12y ago
This must have been done out of politeness and not out of legal reasons. I don't think Gruber has any legal foothold with respect to the name here. The license you quote is essentially based on copyright. But copyright deals with creative works, not names; names are the domain of trademark. In the US at least, copyright is automatic; trademarks are not. You must explicitly register trademarks in order to have any legal enforcement power over a name. Has Gruber registered for trademark in the US? I kind of doubt it. I am not a lawyer, but this smells like something he just wrote in the contract because he could, not because it actually can be enforced as such. (Note: This is separate from the discussion of whether it was polite for them to use the name Markdown. I generally agree that it is more polite for this project to distance themselves from the original markdown given that Gruber doesn't want to work with them.)
- dogecoinbase 12y ago
  Incorrect -- there is a doctrine of common law trademark: http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426712 http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426712
  - eslaught 12y ago
    Still, the level of protection for common law trademark is not the same as when registered. From http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts.pdf http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts.pdf 1. "Common law rights exist only for the specific area where the mark is used" (vs registering gives you "a legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark nationwide"). 2. Registration grants you "the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court". (It's not obvious to me how this differs from common law protections, but that's what the document says.) Also mentioned in the document is that if you fail to defend you rights and the trademark enters common usage (e.g. "escalator" being the canonical example), then you lose protection under the law. At any rate, the point is, this is trademark law, not copyright, so don't assume what you know of copyright law applies (or that your licenses which are written to protect copyrights will adequately address trademark issues).
- nullary 12y ago
  There seems to be no relevant "MarkDown" trademark registered in the US. All the results I found were retail related: https://www.dropbox.com/s/su3ka2jgffuaxfe/Screenshot%202014-09-09%2012.08.25.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/su3ka2jgffuaxfe/Screenshot%202014-...