Specifically, this point here:
Found on this page here.
Would suggest changing to accommodate. Some on Twitter had suggested Topdown, etc.
Saw that, but here guidelines/recommendations here, seemed like GitHub should be reserved for bugs/code performance improvements, etc. But link to issue is helpful.
All other Markdown variations have managed to avoid sounding as if they were trying to co-opt the name.
This name seems designed specifically to co-opt the name.
Years ago there was a long-distance phone provider which setup its name so that it would be chosen when people said “I don’t care” or “whatever” when asked which long distance company they wanted to use. That was a scam. So is trying to call what you are doing “Standard” markdown. It’s a semantics trick.
No one objects to the goal of the project. But calling it “standard” markdown is not ok.
If a standard actually (as in RFC stuff) ends up being implemented I don’t really think that’s an issue.
Either way, just as Github-flavored Markdown doesn’t co-opt the name, Standard-flavored Markdown doesn’t seem like a bad idea. And I’m all for changing names if it infringes the licence or if Gruber feels it’s misleading.
You are only bound by the license if you use the code. That’s how licenses work. You can’t add arbitrary conditions to a license such as “you may not use the name Markdown” and then expect them to apply to people who are not even bound by the license at all (e.g. aren’t using the code). Restricting the use of a name (or “mark”) is covered under trademark law, not copyright/licensing law.
Since stmd does not use any of the original Markdown code, Gruber’s license is completely irrelevant.
Aside: Gruber has also been a terrible steward of the language. All he seems to do is make snide remarks from the sidelines and threaten to run home with his football if anyone tries to improve the sorry state of interoperation.
Ignoring the license just opens up a potential copyright claim by Gruber against the Standard Markdown.
Forget the fact that the name is in a bit of poor taste, given Gruber’s obvious feelings on the matter, It seems silly that the team behind it would want to run into any potential legal pitfalls, when such a problem could be resolved immediately and simply by just changing the project name.
I am not a lawyer (and no lawyer would have the final word about questions like this either – it will be a judge), but AFAICT, you can add ‘arbitrary’ conditions to any license which you write up…
I am not a lawyer (and no lawyer would have the final word about questions like this either – it will be a judge), but AFAICT, you can add ‘arbitrary’ conditions to any license which you write up…
You cut off the last half of my sentence in your quote. I suggest you re-read it and attempt to comprehend what I actually said.
Gruber wrote a slow, buggy and underspecified Perl script many years ago, then washed his hands and declared it finished. Since then, jgm has done vastly more for the language than Gruber ever did, including writing (and properly maintaining) about 5 of the most popular libraries, the most useful interop-checker (BabelMark) and now this spec (2 years in the making).
It’s petty of Gruber to even insinuate a legal battle. All the people writing this spec are trying to do is to help make the Markdown language more useful (with copious acknowledgement and praise directed at Gruber – which he frankly doesn’t deserve).
Please calm down… 
I did read and ‘attempt to comprehend what you actually said’. I just thought it would’nt matter so much for my statement – because I’d uphold that statement even against these un-quoted parts which I skipped.
IANAL and I’m not sure in how far Gruber’s Markdown documentation is also covered by his license…
I did read and ‘attempt to comprehend what you actually said’. I just thought it would’nt matter so much for my statement – because I’d uphold that statement even against these un-quoted parts which I skipped.
IANAL and I’m not sure in how far Gruber’s Markdown documentation is also covered by his license…
You didn’t re-read it did you? I said you can’t make up license terms and expect them to apply to people who are not bound by the license.
You are either bound by a license or not. stmd is not bound by the original Markdown license at all, and hence all of it’s terms, including the one you quoted, are irrelevant – whether or not you “uphold” them (whatever that even means).
Whether Gruber has a valid claim to “Markdown” as a trademark is a different issue and has nothing to do with the license. I highly doubt he does have a valid claim, and somewhat doubt he’d go to the effort of making one.
IANAL
You really didn’t need to point that out. It’s already abundantly obvious.
I think JohnMacFarlaneMarkdown™ (extension .jgmmd ) might have a certain elegance and expressiveness …
Completely agree with you in regards to pdfkungfoo, but doesn’t Gruber own the copyright on the name “Markdown” by the simple fact that he created it? The only place he’s specified use is in that license, but does that matter? I’m a total novice in this matter, so I’m just trying to understand.
At the end of the day though, the project was created by Gruber, and for this project to see success and not dismissal from a very large percentage of potential users, it seems like trying to not move in direct opposition of Gruber’s wishes for the project would be the best course of action.
Regardless of what your personal opinions appear to be of Gruber, which you’re free to have, it doesn’t change the fact that Gruber created Markdown. The pedantic discussion as to if Standard Markdown is OK or not per Gruber’s license seems to be the sort of problem that will damn what appears to be a great project before it even really gets a chance to get off of the ground.
JohnMacFarlane-flavored Markdown™.
If Gruber asserted a trademark on the name “Markdown” then there is an argument here for infringement (caveat: I am not a lawyer, but I have done trademark licensing for about 25 years). If there is no trademark assertion, then the conditions on the license do indeed only apply when using the code that is copyrighted.
That being said, there’s no reason to quibble about this. The people who are maintaining this site and developing this ‘standard’ must be aware of the risks or lack thereof. If this gets stable and they want to take it to some formal standards body (not an RFC… W3C or ISO) then W3C or ISO will worry about the legal stuff. That’s part of their value add.
You saw that I expressed doubts about whether Gruber’s Markdown documentation also is or isn’t falling under the license in question? This documentation undoubtedly is used by everyone in the Markdown universe to derive their own implementation flavors from.
(You’ve registered on this platform 2 hours ago and managed to write a dozen postings, half of which contain quite aggressive and rude language, not just against me. Are you aware of that? If so, your choice.)
You saw that I expressed doubts about whether Gruber’s Markdown documentation also is or isn’t falling under the license in question? This documentation undoubtedly is used by everyone in the Markdown universe to derive their own implementation flavors from.
If the question is “can derivatives of a language, which is based on several decades of observable idioms in email and chat conversations, fall under the conditions of a license, simply because the subject of that license happens to contain some documentation loosely describing said language” – I would say absolutely not.
Try to cool down, people - this is getting a little heated.