The primary benefit fromsubscribing to LWN is helping to keep us publishing, but, beyond that, subscribers get immediate access to all site content and access to a number of extra site features. Please sign up today!
By Jake Edge
January 11, 2017
The appearance of a "python2.8" got the attention of the Python core developers in early December. It is based on Python2.7, with features backported from Python3.x. In general, there was little support for the effort―core developers tend to clearly see Python3 as the way forward―but no opposition to it either. The Python license makes it clear that these kinds of efforts are legal and even encouraged―any real opposition to the project lies in its name.
Larry Hastingsalerted the python-dev mailing list about the Python2.8 project (which has since been renamed to "Placeholder" until another name can be found). It is a fork of Python2.7.12 with features likefunction annotations, yieldfrom , async / await , and the matrix multiplication operator ported from Python3. It is meant to be a drop-in replacement for Python2.7, so it won't have features that are incompatible with it. It is aimed at those who are not ready (or willing) to make the jump to Python3, but want some of the features from it.
The name "Python2.8" implies a level of support, though; it also uses a name (Python) that is trademarked by the Python Software Foundation . Steven D'Apranorecalled discussions at the time of the decision to stop Python2.x development at 2.7:
I seem to recall that when we discussed the future of Python2.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 Python3 features to a Python2 fork, they should not call it Python2.8 as that could mislead people into thinking it was officially supported.
He and others called for the project to be renamed. An issue was filed for the project suggesting a rename. As it turns out, the owner of the project, Naftali Harris, is amenable to the change , which simplifies things greatly. Had that not been the case, though, it is not entirely clear that the PSF Trademark Usage Policy precludes using the name "Python" that way.
David Mertz, who is a member of the PSF Trademarks committee,believes that "Python2.8" would be a misuse of the trademark and referred it to the committee. Terry Reedyagreed, saying that the project was a "derived work" and that clause7 of the Python License does not automatically allow the use of the PSF trademarks.
But Marc-Andre Lemburgnoted that the trademark policy is seemingly written to allow for uses like this. The policy says:
[...] stating accurately that software is written in the Python programming language, that it is compatible with the Python programming language, or that it contains the Python programming language, is always allowed. In those cases, you may use the word "Python" or the unaltered logos to indicate this, without our prior approval.He pointed out that the project also fulfilled the license requirements by listing the differences from 2.7.12 as is required in clause3. But he agreed that a name change should be requested. For his part, Guido van Rossum is not particularly concerned by the existence of the project:
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 Python3 reliably because it is not true Python3 (e.g. str/bytes). So then it's just a toy. Who cares about having 'async def' if there's no backport of asyncio?
Mertz, however isnot so sure. The existence of a "Python2.8" may " serve as a pretext for managers to drag their feet further on migration plans ", which will be detrimental to organizations where that happens. PEP404 (the " Python2.8 Un-release Schedule ") makes it quite clear that the core development team (and, presumably, the PSF) is resolute about a 2.8 release: " There never will be an official Python2.8 release. It is an ex-release. "
But there are various other projects that have "Python" in their names (IronPython, ActivePython, MicroPython, etc.) as well as projects with names that are suggestive of Python without directly using the name (Jython, PyPy, Cython, Mython, and so on). Where is the line to be drawn? As with all trademark questions, though, it comes down to a question of user confusion: will users expect that something called "Python2.8" is officially endorsed and supported by the PSF? The answer would seem to clearly be "yes".
Luckily, everyone is being fairly reasonable―no legal action has been needed or even really considered. The fact that Harris was willing to change the name obviated any need to resort to legal remedies. The GitHub issue thread is full of suggestions for alternate names, replete with Monty Python references―our communities love to bikeshed about names. There are also some snide comments about Python3 and the like, but overall the thread was constructive.
As far as new names go, an early favorite was "Pythonesque", but calling the binary " pesque " reminded some of the word "pesky", which is not quite what Harris is after (though " pyesque " might work). He renamed the project to "Placeholder" on December12 " while we find a good permanent name that I like and that works for the PSF ". The current leader appears to be Pyvergent (since Mython already exists and one might guess that Harris is not entirely serious about Placeholder). In any case, he said, the decision does not need to be made immediately.
At this point, Placeholder appears to largely be a one-developer project. Its GitHub history starts in October 2016 and some real progress has seemingly been made; quite a few features have been ported from Python3. The issues list shows some ambitious plans that might make it less of a "toy" than Van Rossum envisioned. If it ends up being popular and attracting more of a community, it could perhaps become a strong player in the Python world.
There is a balance to be struck on trademark policies for free-software projects. As we saw in the Debian-Mozilla trademark conflict, which resulted in the "I