Quality control in open source development

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Matimus wrote:
> Others have made some pretty
> sound arguments around trademarks and such, but I'm going to simply
> argue that Python as a community has its own inertia, and it simply
> isn't a practical to be concerned about a dubious fork. It simply
> wouldn't take off.

I think this is indeed the strongest argument. If it isn't on
python.org, it won't be Python 2.7 (and people won't mistake it for that).

The PSF encourages alternative implementations of Python
(whether as forks from the current code base, or by starting from
scratch), and there are indeed several such implementations available
(Jython, Stackless Python, IronPython, PyPy). Formally, people need to
designate their implementation with some additional attribute, as
done in this list, or even in "mere" repackaging (ActivePython,
Enthought Python Distribution).

As a matter of fact, all these people not only come up with specific
names because they are required to do so, but also because they are
proud of their specific product, and they *want* people to recognize
that this is different (in various ways) from "core" Python (which
they sometimes call CPython, just to make it clear that this is actually
but another implementation of the Python language).

Regards,
Martin