[Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub

Wes Turner wes.turner at gmail.com
Sat Dec 10 17:28:08 EST 2016

So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python? Forks
without the blessing of the PSF cannot be called Python? That's really not
open source.

- https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/python/python25/diff27
- "PEP: Distributing a Subset of the Standard Library" https://
  - https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0534/


I think trying to maintain a fork without support from the community is a
bad idea for a number of reasons:

- How quickly are vulnerability fixes to be backported? (if ever)
- Duplication of effort
- Fragmentation

But as an academic exercise, what a useful way to review both Python 2 and

But it's very common for folks to apply patches and still call the package
and the binary 'python' (with the same version number):

- https://github.com/ContinuumIO/anaconda-recipes/tree/master/python-2.7
- https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-devel/sources/
- http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/xenial/python-defaults
- Distribution XYZ redistribution [Python 2.7.12]
- Unmerged development forks

With these license and trademark policies, does unblessed fork need to:

- change their project name to not include the word "python"
- change the binary name so that simple PATH changes don't work
- clutter their diffs with noise
- use an arbitrary version number

Where is that stated?

Are all unmerged development forks / branches in violation of said policy?

The fork in immediate question is not backwards-compatible with Python 2.

It's clear that the PSF position is that there will never be an official
Python 2.8; and that development time and effort are better spent porting
things to the backwards-incompatible Python 3.4/3.6.

On Saturday, December 10, 2016, David Mertz <mertz at gnosis.cx> wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2016 10:42 AM, "Wes Turner" <wes.turner at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wes.turner at gmail.com');>> wrote:
> and this is on purpose, since Python is BSD software which
>> anyone can use, modify, fork, etc.
> So, otherwise everyone who forks for any reason is in violation of the
> trademark policy?
> The trademark issue has nothing to do with the code copyright or forking.
> PyPy, Brython, IronPython, Jython are all distinct code bases that
> implement (mostly) the same language semantics. Probably all of those use
> some code from CPython, but even if some other implementation used zero
> common code it wouldn't matter.
> None of those projects are allowed to call their next release "Python 2.8"
> either, regardless of precise semantics implemented. I could call some
> project Foothon 2.8 if I wanted, because it wouldn't invite confusion about
> official status for the PDF.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20161210/d2e5d623/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list