Markdown licensing

[european bob]

On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 15:51 -0500, John Gruber wrote:
> Well, perhaps in spirit, it *is* linking. 

But, the question isn't one of linking, it is what is legally
derived :o) And spiritually, it's not derived - it's just communicating.

> If I switch to the LGPL, I'm fairly certain any open source project
> should be able to include Markdown, so long as they either don't
> change Markdown's source code, or, if they do, they release those
> changes under the LGPL. But I wonder if BSD-licensed projects will
> still feel they can't use it?

I think you're correct in saying that technically they would be able to
use it - in fact, technically they are able to use it now, unless they
are using a non-GPL compatible licence (BSD is compatible). But, I don't
really see any good reason why it should be those compatible licences
alone either - it would be more useful combinable with anything, even in
library form. 

> For example LGPL'd code can't be used with Apache projects:
> 
>   <http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/Using_20LGPL_27d_20code>

Much as I dislike GPL zealots, anti-GPL zealots are as bad if not worse:

            <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/07/msg00234.html>
      <http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71522&cid=6466666>

One of the primary reasons behind ASL2.0 was to ensure it was
GPL-compatible; to help the 'LGPL does weird things with Java' meme
doesn't help - poor old Mr Turner was asked whether or not two things
were linkable, his "yes" was interpreted as "no". 

There are pros and cons of using LGPL versus MBSD (Modified BSD):

- LGPL requires the library (Markdown, in this case) stay Free software
(this is a pro or a con, depending on your viewpoint)
- LGPL allows the user to upgrade their library version without
requiring the co-operation of their vendor (useful, if they want a more
up-to-date or modified version of the library)
- MBSD is simpler to comply with (you just need to ensure that the
copyright notices are displayed properly, and that you're not misusing
the author's name)
- people don't look at or understand licences, and LGPL being more
complex leads them to having irrational, baseless fears

There is very little *technical* difference between the two, other than
the first two points. Whether or not they are desirable, and whether or
not they outweigh the (obvious, at least on this list ;)
misunderstanding of what (L)GPL means, is possibly at the crux of the
issue.

> For one thing, they wouldn't
> be allowed to call their derived version "Markdown" without my
> permission. It's the source code the BSD license grants use of, not
> the name.

I don't think anything necessarily prevents people using the name though
- you might want to look into that. You can use unregistered trademarks,
but there are some registered trademarks already using "Markdown" in
part, and I wonder whether "markdown" is actually a generic (retail)
term? In general, whereas copyright is an 'automatic' thing, trademarks
aren't. If you want to go along these lines, it might be better to
design a logo around the name - a recognised shape is much easier to
marque than just a name or a phrase. 

You might want to look up the Mozilla Firefox discussion on debian-legal
for people's various opinions on whether or not using trademarks to
discourage modification is a good or bad thing, but at the end of the
day I think requiring people to change the name in response to
modification is generally thought to not be that much of a burden
(unless it's an obvious road-block to people modifying the software).

[ok, I'm only looking at US trademarks... but... well, y'know]

-- bob.