What seems missing from this thread is that Markdown is not just the syntax, it is also an actual piece of software: Markdown.pl. I don’t understand how it is “ambiguous”. The syntax may be ambiguous, but any ambiguities are resolved by the Perl implementation. The correct HTML output of a specific piece of Markdown-syntax input is the output that Markdown.pl generates. Any implementation that differs from Markdown.pl (possibly including Common Markdown) is simply not compatible with Markdown.
Any software or spec that attempts to replicate or describe what Markdown.pl does, is a derivative work of the software and is covered by the license. If it does not attempt to replicate what Markdown.pl does (and I think that is the case here, with the “ambiguities” you have “fixed”) then it is not Markdown and certainly not common.
Goodness, what a diva. I thought we would have gotten over such minor things as CAPITALIZATION (in spite of the Wordpress (intentional) community’s childish rants).
Whether you agree with his view on the names Common and Standard Markdown or not, the way Gruber has handled this all has not at all been conducive to getting through it in a civil manner. This all could have been avoided if he had simply answered that first email, couldn’t it?
It’s sort of obvious that he doesn’t approve of/agree with the creators the project, but doesn’t feel like he can deny them the right to do it, so not answering that first e-mail seems like a way of making sure his distaste for it is as public as possible, which he achieved by waiting until the release. And by waiting until release, he was also able to make sure his very loud protests would discredit the project in many people’s eyes and give them a very tough launch.
Same with the change to Common. Answer it privately, and avoid this second round of mess, or wait it out and go public again.
I’m pretty sure he is. Don’t confuse a trademark with a registered trademark.
From the USPTO:
A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services. Although federal registration of a mark is not mandatory, it has several advantages, including notice to the public of the registrant’s claim of ownership of the mark, legal presumption of ownership nationwide, and exclusive right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration.
Again, this isn’t about the trademark. It’s about using his copyrighted work (the Markdown spec) in violation of the terms of the license (don’t use the word “Markdown” in derivative works).
I sometimes use the site Stack Overflow to find answers to questions. Here’s the thing, they did such a horrible job designing it that I can barely stand to use it. I mean, it does what I want most of the time, but it doesn’t conform to my ideal of how Stack Overflow should work.
I’ve decided the only rational response to this is to hijack Stack Overflow entirely. It thrills me to announce I’m releasing a new product called Better Stack Overflow! You can get to it at betterstackoverflow.com.
But that’s not all! I posted a question on Meta asking for permission to do this two weeks ago, and no one’s gotten back to me, so it pleases me to announce that BetterStackOverflow.com has the full support and backing of Stack Overflow!
I said this on Twitter to John and Jeff: can I suggest the name ‘Extended Markdown’? That seems to describe the intent and application, and I don’t think it diminishes the original in any way.
Don’t you think it is good for writers “who never type a lick of code or use strict syntax in their every day life” if they can “just type” and not only get something close to what they expect, but also get something which will actually still work the same way if, in the future, they type the same thing using a different Markdown tool, or on a different website?
That exists already, and we don’t have to teach someone to use precise whitespace to do it. I regularly switch between python-markdown, Github-flavored Markdown, pandoc, MultiMarkdown, PHP-Markdown Extra, and RMarkdown. I never have to look something up or worry about whether it will produce my expected outcome. In fact, in one of the examples above, as pointed out by others, most of the interpretations do not appreciably render different although they have a different DOM tree.
Whether or not you agree with Gruber and some others that Markdown’s flexibility was/is a feature is sort of besides the point. I think it’s great people who have very popular uses of Markdown are trying to consolidate to one flavor. Good on them. But it’s a flavor, not the Standard or Common form.
There is nothing I can see that can be construed as a derivative work.
Everything in the spec that I’ve seen is completely original. You cannot protect ideas with copyright; just their expression in words. If you want a patent about formatting texts the Gruber way, get a patent.
In other words, no software license can stop me from rebuilding your software from scratch; if I do that I’m not bound to your software license that says “Don’t call it Markdown.”
Have you actually read the spec of the new creation? If that’s not a derivative work of Gruber’s copyrighted Markdown work, I don’t know what is. The new spec couldn’t be any more obvious that they’re forking it and improving upon it.
@codinghorror : Gruber has made it clear that he is more attached to the name “Markdown” than he is to the idea of making an easy to use text formatting scheme for the web. Your team’s work has so far eclipsed Gruber’s work that you deserve to be known for it without reference to Gruber. Please consider changing the name to something which has no form of the term “markdown” in it. Gruber will be forgotten and what you’ve created will live on.
I wish John Gruber would focus more on trying to foster the improvements Common Markdown is trying to achieve than complaining about the semantics of his baby.
Good grief, it’s obvious he’s more interested in throwing tantrums than working constructively towards something that benefits everyone, as you’ve worked so hard to do. Bite the bullet, pick a new, unrelated name, and let Markdown fade into obscurity.
Many rebranded forked/improved open projects have thrived in their own right. OpenOffice to LibreOffice. XFree86 to X.org. Phoenix to Firebird to Firefox (ok that wasn’t a fork but still survived multiple rebrandings). Yeah there’s a bit of a switching period but the community will put their weight behind the ones doing all the work.
You obviously have a critical mass of support behind your project; let it live on its own. Pick a name where Googling it won’t turn up Gruber’s post as the first hit. No “Markdown” or “MD”. A year from now you’ll be thankful you did.
You would not be the first one to do this. We don’t really do much other than ask that sites who use the Creative Commons content attribute the work to the original author.* The truth is, Stack Overflow isn’t what creates great content: people who use Stack Overflow create great content. The not-so-secret feature of SO is the community of users.
Markdown is similar. John Gruber set a solid framework that was adopted enthusiastically by many. (I love it because it’s a cleaner version of POD and allows some HTML mixed in.) This project (whatever the name) potentially enables the community of Markdown developers and authors to improve the language. Stack Exchange has 241 Markdown feature requests and many of them are blocked because they are nonstandard. We’ve even had a request to fork Markdown and create our own flavor.
As important as I think Markdown is to Stack Overflow’s success, it’s not our core mission. The bulk of developer time is spent in either writing a spec or fixing bugs. If there were a solid spec for Markdown (and that’s what this project promises), new implementations become much easier to write. If there were a comprehensive set of tests (also provided by this project) bugs surface quickly and extensions become easier to design. Thankfully the spec includes the second most popular missing feature request on meta: code fences. I would have liked to see more Markdown Extra features included, but that can wait.
\* We [defend our logos and brand names](http://stackexchange.com/legal/trademark-guidance), however. The legal system is strange. (See: [xerox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox#Trademark).) I might as well point out here that the opinions I write here are entirely my own. I haven't really heard Stack Exchange's official position on this project.
The name might be locked but my perception on the life and death of a piece of software is by its use.
###Who is using Markdown?
The biggest users of markdown today is Reddit, StackExchange and Github.
###Solution
You guys have already sat down and wrote a spec together. You literally hold the life of Markdown in your hand. Gruber doesn’t wan’t to share the name and help evolve it? Guess what… start your own markup language. It might have the same syntax but as we have learned, syntax is not patent-able. Only implementation. And names can be trademarked.
So the solution… have your own implementation… have your own name and copy the Syntax.
That’s it. Problem solved. With the big three changing the name… Markdown will only be a relic of the past.
Really? I’ve taken it to Copyscape and it seems that the amount of text matchìng between the two documents is 132 words out of 17,372. Not even the table of contents are comparable.
This is an attempt to provide an however objective measure to my subjective claim that yes, the spec was not started by opening http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#overview, hitting Ctrl-X and then Ctrl-V in a new editor. This is what a “derivative work” is, btw.
The only point I could perhaps see is trying to frame the Standard Markdown spec as a derivative work of the adaptation of the Perl program to text form. I think that’s… quite a long stretch; since IANAL, I get to dismiss it entirely for being essentially unheard of. If you don’t like it, well, I’ll exercise my right to be wrong on the internet.
Just for the kicks I ran a compare between the spec and the markdown.pl script; perhaps surprisingly the amount of matching is 0 words. This naturally includes the comments in the program.
Can’t help but contrast Gruber’s immature, pathetic bickering against what’s actually a great project, with Douglas Crockford, who also created a simple and highly useful spec, and has a very humble attitude about it. Crockford claims he just ‘discovered’ JSON, put it out there for anyone to do with it what they wanted, and went on doing awesome things for the community.
Gruber put out a half-assed ‘spec’ for a trivial piece of work and mismanaged it into a painful mess, and is now being a total douche to the people doing his damn work for him.
