...
- https://twitter.com/VanL/status/807697111886286852
- From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13147972 :
```
(Replying to the top-ranked comment so that as many people as possible see
it)
While I wish Naftali well in his efforts - I have a private Python-derived
language myself! - this is
On Saturday, December 10, 2016, Wes Turner wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 10, 2016, Terry Reedy > wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2016 5:28 PM, Wes Turner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python?
>>>
>>
>> Distributions that make parts of the stdlib optional are
On Saturday, December 10, 2016, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 12/10/2016 5:28 PM, Wes Turner wrote:
>
>>
>> So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python?
>>
>
> Distributions that make parts of the stdlib optional are not forks. The
> PSF Windows installer makes tcl/tk, tkinter, IDLE
On 12/10/2016 10:11 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/10/2016 5:28 PM, Wes Turner wrote:
So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python?
Distributions that make parts of the stdlib optional are not forks. The
PSF Windows installer makes tcl/tk, tkinter, IDLE, and turtle? modules
o
On 12/10/2016 5:28 PM, Wes Turner wrote:
So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python?
Distributions that make parts of the stdlib optional are not forks. The
PSF Windows installer makes tcl/tk, tkinter, IDLE, and turtle? modules
optional.
Distributions that package addi
So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python? Forks
without the blessing of the PSF cannot be called Python? That's really not
open source.
- https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/python/python25/diff27
- "PEP: Distributing a Subset of the Standard Library" https://
groups.goog
FWIW the author is amenable to renaming, so that's the end for me. See the
issue referenced earlier in the thread.
--Guido (mobile)
On Dec 10, 2016 1:24 PM, "David Mertz" wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2016 10:42 AM, "Wes Turner" wrote:
>
> and this is on purpose, since Python is BSD software which
>
On Dec 10, 2016 10:42 AM, "Wes Turner" wrote:
and this is on purpose, since Python is BSD software which
> anyone can use, modify, fork, etc.
>
So, otherwise everyone who forks for any reason is in violation of the
trademark policy?
The trademark issue has nothing to do with the code copyright
I am more worried about the confusion than Guido is. I agree that this will
remain a toy project. But as someone who trains scientist to use Python and
consults with large companies with large Python 2 codebases, I think the
very existence of a thing called "Python 2.8" will serve as a pretext for
On Saturday, December 10, 2016, Wes Turner wrote:
> s/python/pythone28000/g. There; now I can read the diff's.
>
> On Saturday, December 10, 2016, Wes Turner > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 10, 2016, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>
>>> On 10.12.2016 10:05, David Mertz wrote:
>>> > I'm forward
s/python/pythone28000/g. There; now I can read the diff's.
On Saturday, December 10, 2016, Wes Turner wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 10, 2016, M.-A. Lemburg > wrote:
>
>> On 10.12.2016 10:05, David Mertz wrote:
>> > I'm forwarding this to the PSF Trademarks committee. If there is a
>> > vio
On Saturday, December 10, 2016, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 10.12.2016 10:05, David Mertz wrote:
> > I'm forwarding this to the PSF Trademarks committee. If there is a
> > violation, it's a misuse of trademark, not copyright on the code which
> has
> > the Python license stack.
> >
> > I'm on that
Paul Moore schrieb am Sa., 10. Dez. 2016 um 11:38 Uhr:
> Someone has raised an issue against the project at
> https://github.com/naftaliharris/python2.8/issues/47 We should
> probably see what the project owner's response to that is.
>
That would be me, hi.
I really hope this is resolved in a c
While I think the name is misleading and in violation of PSF policy and/or
license, I am not too worried about this. I expect it will be tough to port
libraries from Python 3 reliably because it is not true Python 3 (e.g.
str/bytes). So then it's just a toy. Who cares about having 'async def' if
th
On 10 December 2016 at 13:49, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
[...]
> Regardless of the name, it'll be interesting to see whether
> there's demand for such a fork. Without a website, binaries
> to download, documentation, etc. it's still in the very early
> stages.
>
IMHO, whether or not there is demand fo
On 10.12.2016 10:05, David Mertz wrote:
> I'm forwarding this to the PSF Trademarks committee. If there is a
> violation, it's a misuse of trademark, not copyright on the code which has
> the Python license stack.
>
> I'm on that committee and agree this is improper use. Let's see what other
> mem
On 10 December 2016 at 18:18, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2016, at 07:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>>I seem to recall that when we discussed the future of Python 2.x, and the
>>decision that 2.7 would be the final version and there would be no 2.8, we
>>reached a consensus that if anyone d
> I believe that this 'derived work' is both a trademark and a license
> violation. Clause 7 of the PSF License V. 2, as displayed by '>>>
> license()', explicitly denies permission to make derivative works that
> violate PSF Trademarks. Perhaps Github and Infoworld should be
> informed also, bu
On 10 December 2016 at 10:36, Paul Moore wrote:
> Someone has raised an issue against the project at
> https://github.com/naftaliharris/python2.8/issues/47 We should
> probably see what the project owner's response to that is.
By the way, looking at the project history, it seems to have been
roun
On 10 December 2016 at 10:15, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 12/10/2016 4:05 AM, David Mertz wrote:
>>
>> I'm forwarding this to the PSF Trademarks committee. If there is a
>> violation, it's a misuse of trademark, not copyright on the code which
>> has the Python license stack.
>
>
> I believe that this
On 12/10/2016 4:05 AM, David Mertz wrote:
I'm forwarding this to the PSF Trademarks committee. If there is a
violation, it's a misuse of trademark, not copyright on the code which
has the Python license stack.
I believe that this 'derived work' is both a trademark and a license
violation. Cla
I'm forwarding this to the PSF Trademarks committee. If there is a
violation, it's a misuse of trademark, not copyright on the code which has
the Python license stack.
I'm on that committee and agree this is improper use. Let's see what other
members think.
On Dec 10, 2016 12:19 AM, "Barry Warsaw
On Dec 10, 2016, at 07:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>I seem to recall that when we discussed the future of Python 2.x, and the
>decision that 2.7 would be the final version and there would be no 2.8, we
>reached a consensus that if anyone did backport Python 3 features to a Python
>2 fork, they s
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 09:56:44PM -0800, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> "Python 2.8 is a backwards-compatible Python interpreter with new
> features from Python 3.x. It was produced by forking Python 2.7.12 and
> backporting
[...]
> https://github.com/naftaliharris/python2.8
I seem to recall that w
On 10.12.16 07:56, Larry Hastings wrote:
"Python 2.8 is a backwards-compatible Python interpreter with new
features from Python 3.x. It was produced by forking Python 2.7.12 and
backporting some of the new syntax, builtins, and libraries from Python
3. Python code and C-extensions targeting Pytho
25 matches
Mail list logo
