# Using the name "CommonMark"

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/using-the-name-commonmark/2219>\
**Category:** Meta\
**Created:** [September 4, 2016, 7:34am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/using-the-name-commonmark/2219 "2016-09-04T07:34:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fhaag](https://cdn.commonmark.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v2/letter/f/8e8cbc/32.png) [@fhaag](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/fhaag)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2016, 7:34am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/using-the-name-commonmark/2219/1 "2016-09-04T07:34:53Z")

</div>

As has been discussed here before, the [license on John Gruber’s original Markdown website](https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/license) comes with a term that requires (even if maybe not legally, but at least by professional courtesy) prior written permission by the author to use the name _Markdown_ in certain contexts.

What is the policy on using _CommonMark_ in names of projects somehow related to the CommonMark specification?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![codinghorror](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/codinghorror/32/2_2.png) [@codinghorror](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/codinghorror)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 4:50am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/using-the-name-commonmark/2219/2 "2016-09-07T04:50:28Z")

</div>

As long as it conforms to the spec, I say use it all you like. The central theme of CommonMark is that the name tells users they can enjoy a reasonable expectation that the implementation will work like all the others, e.g. it follows the spec.