Python Trademark Status

[Tim Peters]

[David]
> ...
> There is no substantial difference between a trademark and a service
> mark.  Trademarks deal with hard goods; service marks deal with
> services.  Both receive the same legal protection and are, for all
> intents and purposes, the same thing.

I'm drawing the distinction because *they* did; they don't do anything with
legal implications-- no matter how slight --by accident.  Go back to the
USPTO site and look up CNRI's earlier application for the name "JPython".
There they asked for a trademark instead, and used very different language
in describing what the mark covers.

>  ...
> The risk in this case CNRI gaining service mark ownership of the name
> "Python" for "information services, namely, providing computer programs,
> news, links, and documentation relating to an object-oriented computer
> programming language and its development environment."

Which reads a heck of a lot more like a website than a programing language,
especially when contrasted to the description in their JPython application:
"computer software that implements a programming language".

> If CNRI gets pissy, they'll be able to make Guido change the name of his
> programming language.

I'm sure they don't want that, but equally sure they do want *something*.
They haven't yet said what, though, as far as I know, and indeed have
delayed talking about possible trademark issues at all so far (as they said
in the CNRI License FAQ:  http://www.python.org/1.6/license_faq.html,
question 24).

> ... [skipping out of order for a bit] ...
> On the other hand, maybe CNRI doesn't have bad intentions and won't be
> pissy.

AFAIK, they won't talk about their intentions or motivations either in
public or private, beyond appeals to "the public good" (where I guess that's
supposed to be self-evidently equivalent to whatever it is they're doing at
the moment <0.7 wink>).  For a good time, ask them <wink>.

> Now, this could be an opportunity to start from scratch.  Do Python 3000
> immediately.  Make it so good that everyone wants to jump ship.  And write
> a translator to make it easier to port old 1.5.x code to the new BDFL3000
> language.

Alas, I see no way to fund an effort of that magnitude at this time, and at
least the folks at BeOpen PythonLabs very much *want* to continue
development of the Python 2.0 line:  there's a window of opportunity that
won't wait for BDFL3K to arrive.  So *if* we need a name change, I expect
we'd do that right now on Python(sm) 2.0, and let CNRI sit on their marks
without challenge or hope of getting anything in exchange for them.  I doubt
it will come to that, though.

not-speaking-for-anyone-but-two-of-the-voices-in-my-head-ly y'rs  - tim