[Stackless] PEP 0404 and VS 2010 (python-dev)

Christian Tismer tismer at stackless.com
Sun Nov 24 02:19:36 CET 2013


Hi guys,

Richard Tew:
> I've decided to stop posting to the python-dev mailing list.

I think it is a good decision to stop posting on python-dev about this.
We have exposed ourselves enough to random-opinions.
The thread was ok, the result was mixed:

They will not open a law-suit, but they hate the idea of "stackless 
python 2.8".
Although PEP 404 does not claim this exactly, it is now clear what they 
don't want.
If we give in and change something, then it is to avoid this name.

Anselm Kruis:
> 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.

I think it is an over-reaction to avoid the name "python" at all.
By doing this, we are bending ourselves way too much back, and I won't
go this way. If I ever had consequently tried to avoid any confrontation,
then stackless would not exist at all.
Instead, I will propose to claim
"""stackless 2.8 is based upon stackless python 2.7,
which is based upon python 2.7."""
And the documentation is explicitly from python 2.7, plus some stackless
documentation which points exactly from where things are back-ported.

Anselm Kruis:
> The VS2010 compiler problem does not justify a new version number.

It also does not forbid it. If python-dev does a back-port of VS2010
or other compilers, we can adopt this back-port. As long as they don't, we
should do it as a part of "stackless 2.8" and don't get stopped by them.

Back to Anselm, 2013/11/06:
> About a Stackless 2.8: I like the idea, but we should keep a tight 
> rein on it and only accept back-ports of features already in 
> (Stackless-) Python 3.x. Otherwise we won't be able to keep a 
> reasonable quality. And nobody will use a Stackless 2.8, if there is 
> no reasonable migration path to (stackless) python 3.x. But if we add 
> proven 3.x features, a stackless 2.8 could become an attractive option 
> on the way to python 3.

Now it reads:
> 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).

Let us please not move backwards and now retract too much.
If Anselms boss has a problem, then he may stick with stackless python 
2.7.x.
I don't think that this should stop Stackless from moving on.
The next step is happening right now. I also cannot convince my customer
to move to "stackless 2.8", but it will be done, anyway.

Richard Tew:
> Do we need to email the PSF and get a clear statement under which
> circumstances the trademark will be used against us?

I don't think this is necessary, and it is also not a good idea.
Let us not fall into the trap to treat this as a law-suit. It is none,
but it can morph into it if we ask too much instead of driving the right 
decisions,
alone.

I will try to write up a proposal in the next email.

cheers - chris


> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:stackless-bounces at stackless.com  [mailto:stackless-
> >bounces at stackless.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tew
> >Sent: 30. október 2013 18:14
> >To: The Stackless Python Mailing List
> >Subject: Re: [Stackless] Fwd: [Stackless-checkins] stackless (2.7-slp): add a
> >filter function to zipfile.PyZipFile.
> >
> >No, let me be clear.  I do not have an opinion about the source control.
> >
> >I am suggesting that Stackless-related discussion stay on this mailing list.  It is
> >a general topic that covers 2.x and 3.x and does not relate to enhancing the
> >2.x line.
> >
> >And that Python 2.x development go on another mailing list.
> >



_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless

艮

On 23.11.13 08:31, Richard Tew wrote:
> 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?
>
> Cheers,
> Richard.
>
>
> 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
>>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-November/130546.html
>>> 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?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Richard.
> _______________________________________________
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless


-- 
Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer at stackless.com>
Software Consulting          :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121     :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14482 Potsdam                :     PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de
phone +49 173 24 18 776  fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
PGP 0x57F3BF04       9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619  305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
       whom do you want to sponsor today?   http://www.stackless.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.stackless.com/pipermail/stackless/attachments/20131124/6ff3a140/attachment.html>


More information about the Stackless mailing list