[Python-Dev] PEP 0404 and VS 2010

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri Nov 22 00:36:57 CET 2013

On 11/21/2013 5:13 PM, martin at v.loewis.de wrote:
> Quoting Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz>:
>> Concerning the version number, I thought the intention of
>> PEP 404 was simply to say that the PSF would not be releasing
>> anything called Python 2.8, not to forbid anyone *else*
>> from doing so.
>> Or am I wrong about that?
> That's correct.
>> If I'm right, there's nothing stopping Christian from
>> releasing Stackless Python 2.8 with whatever improvements
>> he wants.
> "Nothing stopping" is exactly right. People still don't need
> to like it. Barry wishes there was something stopping him,
> and be it a lawyer invoking trademark law.

My lay knowledge of US Trademark law and case history and reading of
suggests that 'nothing stopping' is exactly wrong. I believe the 
trademark has also been registered in Europe.

As usual, 'I am not a lawyer', but if Christian wants to push forward 
with using 'Python 2.8', I suggest that he consult the PSF Trademark 
Committee and lawyer first.

> If "2.8" was just a version number of Stackless Python not
> related to Python version (like PyPy's version number currently
> being 2.2), protest would be much less.

But it is *not* unrelated.

> People fear that
> releasing Stackless Python 2.8 would create the impression that
> even CPython has continued development, and it might require
> significant PR efforts to educate people.

Yep, I do. 'Stackless 10' would have no issue.

I think two unrelated issues are being mixed together in this thread 
that really should be two separate thread.

1. Compiling Windows CPython x.y with more than one compiler. This is 
not specifically a Stackless issue or even a 2.7 issue. If 3.4 is 
released compiled with VS2010, there will be people wanting it compiled 
with VS2013(12?). And vice versa.

2. Public releases of new Python versions based on 2.7 that are not 3.x. 
How they are named is an issue regardless of what Windows compiler is 
used, if indeed a release even uses one. In my view, either no one 
should be allowed to call something 'X Python 2.8' (or any unofficial 
x.y), or everyone should. The latter might mean that we see Stackless 
Python 2.8, Ubuntu Python 2.8, RedHat Python 2.8, ActiveState Python 
2.8, Enthought Python 2.8, etc, all different. I prefer no one.

Terry Jan Reedy

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list