On 13 December 2016 at 02:12, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It absolutely *is* relevant, as is how diligent the redistributors are >> in differentiating between the unmodified upstream project and the >> patches we have applied post-release (rather than just posting the end >> result without a clear audit trail). Distros don't do all that extra >> work just for the fun of it - it's an essential part of keeping track >> of who's ultimately responsible for which pieces in a way that's >> transparent to recipients of the software. Ensuring we aren't taking >> excessive liberties with the language definition is also one of the >> reasons we sometimes seek explicit permission for deviations - it >> documents that those particular changes still fit within the bounds of >> what counts as "Python". > > For clarification: By "we" in the above paragraph, you mean Red Hat, > not the PSF, right? You have two affiliations. :)
You're right, I should be clearer about my pronouns. Technically I'm referring to the Fedora Python SIG here, as I don't have the authority to speak on behalf of Red Hat itself. There may be visible correlations between the redistribution practices of Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS, though :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
