I think it's entirely reasonable that it hasn't been forked. No-one is willing to do the work. Say what you will about 3.x, but it is what the core developers are interested in working on, and stepping up and doing the work for. That's one thing that bothers me about the current discussion going on out there, non-contributors are expressing entitlements to contributors (of their own free time) doing what the non-contributors want, the way the non-contributors want it. We're better off having a bunch of people still around working on 3.x and a bunch of people who talk about 2.8, than no people working on 3.x or 2.8 and a bunch of people wondering why no-one is working on anything.
The mandatory agreement is the way all solid open source projects should be done. If they want to relicense the project because of unforseen problems with the existing license, it likely gives them the ability to do so. Whereas you have projects like videolan which had to tediously track down all contributors or rewrite their contributions, in order to relicense. And there are likely other benefits. Chin up. Maybe there'll be a 2.8 soon. Cheers, Richard. On 12/31/13, Kristján Valur Jónsson <[email protected]> wrote: > What I don't understand is why cpython hasn't been forked long ago. Does it > have some legal status preventing it from that? And whats with the mandatory > contributors agreement? That sounds really odd in the day and age of freely > forkable open source projects. > > > Sent from the æther. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Richard Tew <[email protected]> > Date: > To: The Stackless Python Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stackless] python 2.8 > > > Maybe there's a lesson to be learned that you just can't make > divergent jumps like this, and expect the community to follow. But > then again, the community will have no choice but to eventually follow > given 2.x is closed. > > Personally, I'm over it. It's all in the doing now, we release > Stackless 2.8 because that's what we're interested in. > > Cheers, > Richard. > > On 12/31/13, Kristján Valur Jónsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Alex Gaynor just blogged about the failed state of 3.x and the need to >> give >> in and produce a better 2.x >> >> >> >> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > Stackless mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless > > _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
