[Stackless] PEP 0404 and VS 2010 (python-dev)
richard.m.tew at gmail.com
Sat Nov 23 08:31:57 CET 2013
I've decided to stop posting to the python-dev mailing list. Every
time I post, I wonder who I am talking to, and what it accomplishes.
Am I talking to one of the most vocal posters who always share their
opinion, or someone who represents the official position of the PSF?
Even if someone just voices an opinion, that they mention the
trademark being used against us, has now I take it become a problem
for you Anselm.
The name change is a token gesture. I don't think they've thought it
through. People searching for "Python 2.8" will still find us. But
pointing this out can't really help the situation.
Do we need to email the PSF and get a clear statement under which
circumstances the trademark will be used against us?
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Richard Tew <richard.m.tew at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Anselm Kruis
> <a.kruis at science-computing.de> wrote:
>> 1. We are probably not allowed to release something called "Stackless Python
>> 2.8". This causes significant problems, because it is sheer impossible for
>> us to completely avoid the name Python. And every occurrence of the string
>> "Python" could by a trademark violation. Differentiating between legitimate
>> use of "Python" as the name of the language and misusing trademark "Python"
>> is probably not trivial.
>> That's way to risky (at least for my boss).
>> Therefore we need the permission of the PSF, if we want to release any
>> version not based on an python.org CPython. At least we need a settlement
>> that clearly states, that we still are allowed to distribute the unmodified
>> documentation (it uses the word "Python" very often) and that we are not
>> required to change any doc-strings.
> I'll bring this up on the python-dev mailing list.
>> 2. The VS2010 compiler problem does not justify a new version number. I'm
>> not completely convinced that Steve Downer's proposal
>> works, but there is still the option to change the name of the python-DLL.
>> Because Stackless is binary compatible to corresponding CPython releases, we
>> should wait until CPython VS2010 support is out. Otherwise we loose the
>> ability to use the python ecosystem (PyPi, pip, ...).
>> 3. I still see the requirement to support Python 2.7+ for a much longer
>> period. And reasonable backports from 3.x really make sense. If CPython
>> 2.7.7 adds support for newer compilers, we still could add back ports to
>> 2.7-slp, provided they don't break compatibility.
> Are you suggesting we change our approach, and exclude changes in
> CPython that we do not like (or are inconvenient) from entering
> Stackless Python?
More information about the Stackless