myths about python 3

Carl Banks pavlovevidence at
Thu Jan 28 19:21:52 CET 2010

On Jan 28, 8:10 am, a... at (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <Zt68n.3893$pv.1... at>,
> Neil Hodgson  <nyamatongwe+thun... at> wrote:
> >Carl Banks:
> >> There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
> >> perpetuity.  Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be
> >> able to call it Python.
> >   Over time there may be more desire from those unable or unwilling to
> >upgrade to 3.x to work on improvements to 2.x, perhaps leading to a
> >version 2.8. One of the benefits of open source is that you are not
> >trapped into following vendor decisions like Microsoft abandoning
> >classic VB in favour of VB.NET.
> >   It would be unreasonable for the core developers to try to block
> >this. Refusing use of the Python trademark for a version that was
> >reasonably compatible in both directions would be particularly petty.
> Agreed, and as a PSF member, I'd certainly be opposed to anyone trying to
> prevent the release of Python 2.8, and I would actively favor providing
> PSF and resources to them.  OTOH, I would also be likely to
> push anyone working on Python 2.8 to come up with a solid release plan
> first.

Well, I'd consider that an official release.  Note that I didn't claim
there was no hope PSF wouldn't change it's mind on 2.8.  All I saying
is that if PSF decides to shut down 2.x there's no hope of a rogue
Python 2.x series replacing Python 3.x.

Regardless of how magnaminous the people of PSF are, the unfortunate
reality is that trademark owners are forced by the law to be
"particularly petty".  PSF's IP lawyer will advise not to allow
unsanctioned fork of Python 2.7 to call itself Python 2.8.

Carl Banks

More information about the Python-list mailing list