This is in reference to Twitter comments from 2 years ago jokingly suggesting that based on the chilly reception from Gruber to any kind of reduction in ambiguity in Markdown's so-called spec... the name "YankeesSuck" could be used instead.
I understand that hackers tend to be irascible often, especially online, but parting shots like these are in very poor form. Consideration and goodwill tend be diminished when you can't be graceful no matter what the other party said. Especially considering that other party was originally the impetus for this in the first place.
1. The guy invented it, like or not, he can do whatever he wants with it.
2. He actually said that he would like them to go with some new name and see if it takes off, which I think is fair and I don't get the whole fucking drama. Just come up with a name.
It isn't something new, it is a strongly specified, highly compatible implementation of Markdown. As seen in "common" use on large websites. And any implementation that passes the current spec tests can also brand itself with CommonMark or "Markdown compatible".
Mr. Atwood, you may be too kind. I see this as a chance to bring Markdown to a larger audience by not only standardizing it, but also renaming it as well.
In this endeavor it would appear that you are giving too much credit to Gruber. It is unfortunate that he was not one to be more gracious in the matter.
This comment should be higher. CommonMarkup gets rid of the naming hiccup by having no direct ties to the original spec except syntax, which is arguably a dialect anyway. Atwood gets to have One Syntax to Rule Them All - I sincerely doubt Atwood wanted Yet Another Markdown as he said - and the community benefits from having the syntax ambiguity resolved by comprehensive reform.
'Markright' (adopting another direction other than 'up' or 'down) or 'Markwrite' (implying natural-language composition) would have been other interesting choices. Or even 'Markround' (completed/balanced like a circle).
Each is closer in spirit to the original – a "mark-up" with a different spin for ease or correctness – and close enough in sound/rhythm for drop-in replacement use. And, each is still different enough to avoid any unearned implication of official Gruber-ness.
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.
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.)
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).
Edit: after a long and thoughtful email from John Gruber – which is greatly appreciated – he indicated that no form of the word "Markdown" is acceptable to him in this case. We are now using the name CommonMark.
how was I being sarcastic? Gruber could have skipped the butthurt party by replying to an email sent by the standard markdown team, instead of ignoring them for weeks. He refused communications, reading them to read tea leaves and guess what he might want. Like I said, tantrum. It's behavior expected from a child.
I wasn't talking about anything you wrote, Atwood's post does not sound sarcastic to me. He calls the email leading to the newest name "long and thoughtful". That doesn't sound like a tantrum.
