“Standard Markdown” was problematic so you changed it to “Common Markdown”? I have no reason to believe that the first name was intended as a slap in the face, but the second one sure looks like it. Come on. How hard is this?
3 Likes
I don’t think the name of a technical language with many different implementation counts as any of these.
The name “Python” is a trademark of the Python Software Foundation. Obviously Markdown and Python are different kinds of things, but I think the passage you quoted is intended only to be a very high-level introduction to the concept.
“Common law” trademark rights are acquired automatically when a business uses a name or logo in commerce. See Wikipedia
You don’t agree with it? But that’s not your call. He created a copyrighted piece of work and gave it a name (a mark). The fact that he open sourced it to the benefit of the community does not give that community some right to everything (even though that does seem to be the impression I get reading comments on this).
Gruber did not make Markdown an open standard. He did make the source available so others could benefit, but that’s not the same thing. Gruber is not objecting to use of the syntax, just the name. He gets to control the product name Markdown for the rest of his life, if he so chooses.
1 Like
Er…either you or I must be missing something. Common Markdown isn’t a “product.”
“De facto standard” is apt, because it contrasts from “official” (de jure). It is absolutely correct that the origins of, for the sake of discussion, “Atwood & Co. Markdown”, started out by trying to establish a de facto standard. But you can’t call the elements they chose “standard”, because there is (was) no standard to refer to.
You could say though that they chose the common elements. So, in that sense, the name they’ve chosen is literal, as Jeff says.
I disagree though that a de facto standard has authority or primacy. It’s essentially convention / consensus. If there were anything further… wouldn’t it start being a de jure standard instead?
Can you cite some examples of where the “common” version of a widely-known, but varying, language/library/tool/architecture/software thing is also the “standard” version of said thing?
1 Like
It is a “product” in that there is a deliverable (implementation code, specification, etc).
I think trying to win this via loopholes or wriggling out of responsibility on some technicality is a really bad approach.
My question – why it is so critical that this be called “… Markdown”? Pretty sure there are other names to be had. There is a reason they are wanting to continue to use the name “Markdown”.
1 Like
Because millions of people know the term and understand what it means. If you call it something else, you’d have to explain to those people that this other thing is actually the same as Markdown, we are just not allowed to call it that for legal reasons.
2 Likes
Exactly. Markdown is a known brand and you want to take advantage of the fact that millions of people know what it is and understand what it means and its reputation. That’s what I mean by benefitting from someone else’s brand.
Gruber does allow for various “flavors” of Markdown, but if you want to use his brand, you have to get his permission. It is not complicate. If you want to create your own brand, then you will have complete control over how it is used.
But if you want to take someone else’s brand and then claim “de facto” control over that brand, that’s just stealing of the brand/mark.
They could easily call it TomatoMarkup and say in its description that its syntax is based on Markdown. End of story.
5 Likes
Lots of interesting reading here, and I wasn’t going to comment…
…until it occured to me that Yet Another Solution For A Name would be to smush “Common” into “Markdown” to make (tada!) Comdown.
If you say it out loud, you might understand the appeal. 
I can even see the strapline: “Keep Com…”.
1 Like
I’m not so sure that “common” actually does carry that implication. Is Common Lisp “the” Lisp?
That said, it appears that Jeff et al. are creating the first and so far only consistent and complete standard for Markdown, and it’s a collaborative effort between representatives of some of the sites where Markdown is most used. So I think it’s premature (at best) to say outright that this isn’t (and by implication never will be) “the” Markdown.
2 Likes
I agree with some of the other opinions that there are problems with using the Markdown name without permission. Gruber may well hold a trademark (even if it’s not a Registered Trademark). Even if there is no valid trademark, there seems to be quite a bit of community support for him as the ‘owner’ of the Markdown name.
I would suggest just dropping the “Markdown” name altogether and come up with a new one. I imagine that the market weight of entities like StackExchange, Github and Reddit using this spec would probably help ensure that the new specification would take hold on the larger Internet.
Other projects have successfully incorporated name changes, including Jenkins (formerly Hudson) and XBMC, which a month ago changed its name to “Kobi” (and was formerly known as “Xbox Media Center”). “Phoenix” was renamed to “Firebird” then to “Firefox” due to trademark problems.
Maybe you could call this specification “Textmark”.
Or something else.
2 Likes
“Product” as typically defined means a deliverable for sale. There is no sale involved here. I don’t think that’s a loophole.
1 Like
I have products that I give away for free. Are those no longer “products” because they’re free? Don’t think so. I’d say that’s claiming a loophole. Even if you might get away with it via the letter of the requirement, you are certainly breaking the spirit of the license requirement, esp. when they want to claim to be the new “standard”.
Is this really that hard to figure out? They have to do is either change the name so it doesn’t use Markdown or get Gruber’s permission for a name that uses Markdown. One or the other.
1 Like
Common Markdown may or may not imply the same meaning as standard, so I agree it may be a problem.
I mainly respond because I also like the name Strict Markdown or Markdown Strict.
It’s very precise in that it is reminiscent of HTML and other languages that have “strict” modes.
Strict does not imply that it is the Markdown (as Common might), but I suppose that’s exactly the problem Gruber has with the name Standard.
It is not a derivative work in the sense of copyright. That doesn’t mean it isn’t Markdown, because that’s what it is.
At any rate, this is now called CommonMark, so the whole discussion is now moot.
4 Likes
Well, there is at least one area that they’ve unquestionably improved things:
Are the Yankees the best team in baseball?
We used to think so.
1 Like
Your new name, CommonMark, doesn’t map to .md very well. I was hoping you’d use .md as a file extension and with the help of GitHub make it so when people see .md they think of this spec and not Markdown. Why not pick something that shortens easily to .md like Markdoge?
Just ditch the name and use an entirely new one. I just read the about the “history” Jeff and John have and the glorious announcement of a standardized Markdown now sounds like the beginnings of a flame war.
Markdown belongs to Gruber at least morally, leave it at that. You shouldn’t try to wrest the name from him.
I disagree with Gruber’s strategy of leaving Markdown alone, though. The idea is brilliant, but I firmly believe that we’d be living in a brighter world already had there been a formal specification.
Picking a new name means ripping communities apart, yes. But if GitHub, StackExchange and Reddit go off riding in one direction then I’d like to see the force that tries to pull the other way. Leaving Markdown alone for another 10 years definitely won’t win this race. I’ll happily trade Markdown for whatever name you come up with if it’s finally properly specified.
4 Likes
To make it real clear that this is not The One And Only True m******n. 
1 Like
I would not call those “products”, no; to me, that just seems like a misuse of the term “product.” I realize you don’t agree and that neither of us has any sort of authority over the language, though; additionally, I am not a lawyer, so I won’t make any claims about the legal situation. I simply don’t think Gruber’s statement clearly indicates that freeware and/or proposed technical specifications are in violation of the license. I suppose Gruber probably thinks otherwise.
1 Like