[Python-Dev] PEP 0404 and VS 2010

[Richard Tew]

Hi,

I've been following this thread and the specific issue of the strong
negative reaction to the name "Stackless Python 2.8", and I'm a bit
bothered by the whole experience.

Was there any concern about the name "Stackless Python 0.x" when
Christian released his original versions?  More importantly, has it
caused any real problems over the years?

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-announce-list/1999-July/000117.html

Was there any concern about the dozens of "Stackless Python 2.x" and
"Stackless Python 3.x" versions that I have released over the years
being a cause for confusion?  Or more importantly, any actual problems
experienced?

Yet, suddenly, the chance that we may release a "Stackless Python
2.8", is a concern.

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-November/130429.html
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-November/130466.html
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-November/130467.html
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-November/130495.html

We've been releasing a variant of Python with related version numbers
for over 14 years, under the name "Stackless Python x.x".  Now because
of a different version number, not only is there strong opposition to
us continuing to use this name, but people go so far as to talk about
trademarks as a way to prevent us using "Python" in there.

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-November/130435.html

We're not talking about releasing a Python 2.8 against anyone's wishes
here.  Or in _this specific case_, doing anything other than naming
something in a way we've been naming it for over a decade.  Yet it's
reached the point where people are alluding to ways to forcibly stop
us.

That there are people who would consider using the trademark to force
us to change the name we've been using without harm for 14 years,
worries me.  It's one thing to perhaps use it to stop someone scamming
Python users, and another to suggest using it as a weapon against us
for this?  Really?

Cheers,
Richard.