Other Software > Developer's Corner

Markdown (and what do you do when a community outgrows your contribution)

<< < (5/7) > >>

wraith808:
The good thing that should come out of all of this is that developers should run, not walk, to CommonMark -- and abandon Markdown as rapidly as possible.
-mouser (September 08, 2014, 04:33 PM)
--- End quote ---

That's one thing I'm afraid of.  A fragmentation.  But I don't think that CommonMark should really be hit by that as it doesn't include in the spec not to render other markdown.  Just to make sure that you render this markdown.

phitsc:
...
And that's what they did in the end after he finally made it clear that he wouldn't allow the name to be used under any circumstances.  That's after telling them that he might allow pedantic or strict markdown... which both don't convey what is being done at all. 
...
-wraith808 (September 08, 2014, 04:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well, the Markdown license states that the name “Markdown” may only be used with specific prior written permission. So choosing a different name right from the start, while most certainly not changing Gruber's opinion about the whole endeavor, would maybe have led to less negative reactions from some parts of the community.

DeVamp:
Personally I think it is a good thing to have a standardized reference somewhere, because all the different kind of markdown forks, are hard to know.

But it all depends on what the developers who implement some kind of markdown, will use of course.

wraith808:
...
And that's what they did in the end after he finally made it clear that he wouldn't allow the name to be used under any circumstances.  That's after telling them that he might allow pedantic or strict markdown... which both don't convey what is being done at all. 
...
-wraith808 (September 08, 2014, 04:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well, the Markdown license states that the name “Markdown” may only be used with specific prior written permission. So choosing a different name right from the start, while most certainly not changing Gruber's opinion about the whole endeavor, would maybe have led to less negative reactions from some parts of the community.
-phitsc (September 09, 2014, 01:36 AM)
--- End quote ---

It's not a license... and several people have used it without prior permission.  And if you follow the thread of posts, they asked.  And he never gave a response.  It's also open source... and he inserted closed permission type license into an open source license.  It just doesn't work that way.  Though while he attempted to wield it as such... and has indeed tried to negatively affect certain initiatives as if it were such, he in all probability (never can tell with judges) would have no legal ground to stand on.  You might argue moral or ethical grounds.  But since the licensed code itself had ambiguities and bugs... and when pressed on them as part of this initiative he said there were no bugs- then after CommonMark was released, he said he might go back to address some 'problems'- I'd argue that he already gave up the high ground on that one.

I even think that if they had branded as they are now... he would have still phrased it as they were taking his work.

But, that's neither here nor there.  They did change it, and the historical bit will very likely fade into the ether, probably faster than if they'd taken this approach to begin with.

Renegade:
I've got the distinct feeling that Atwood & co. had an understanding that Gruber was pretty much a capital dick before they did much, and tried to deal with it as nicely as possible. But, that's just my own impression. I could be off base there.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page