On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Lukasz Langa wrote: >PEP: 541 >Title: Package Index Name Retention
Overall, +1 I agree with Steve that some short term name squatting may be appropriate. I'm not sure how you would word that in the PEP, but it will probably effectively work itself out anyway. When I come up with a name for a new project, one of the first things I do is check PyPI and reserve it before the first upload. But that first upload will usually happen pretty quickly. >Name conflict resolution for active projects >-------------------------------------------- > >The maintainers of the Package Index are not arbiters in disputes >around *active* projects. There are many possible scenarios here, >a non-exclusive list describing some real-world examples is presented >below. None of the following qualify for package name ownership >transfer: This is another opportunity to encourage cooperation among the parties to resolve naming conflicts. I think that's what's called for by the CoC, and the hope is that the vast majority of disputes (in practice which I think are pretty rare anyway) can be amicably resolved. It does bring to mind the ability or lack thereof for renaming projects. IIRC that's not possible in current PyPI software but it may be possible in Warehouse. As for trademark owners having priority over names, I suppose there's no way to prevent that, I'm mostly glad that this PEP doesn't speak to that. I'm always edgy about the imbalance of power inherent in the issue, allowing a trademark owner to abuse their power to take over long-established names. OTOH, trademark owners do often have legitimate concerns against squatters. So, I say leave all that out of the PEP. Cheers, -Barry
pgpQu7rVwaCrW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
