Original comment by Anselm Kruis (Bitbucket: akruis, GitHub: akruis):

One conclusion of the PEP 0404 discussion is the requirement for a 2.8-slp to use any trademarks of the PSF in the correct way. Fortunately the PSF gives us clear guidelines in its PSF Trademark Usage Policy

As a first step I propose to update our documentation to comply with the rules of the PSF. We should start with 2.7-slp to simplyfy documentation maintenance. See issue #34 for details.

Original comment by Anonymous:

Good idea!
This way we have a compliant Stackless documentation.
Is it ok to use the unmodified Python documentation as well, or
maybe we need to add a note to the top that there are certain additions?
Or do we need to change the entry points to the docs in a way that
it has clear pointers that say "here is the original python xxx documentation"?

I have not checked yet, but I am sure that PyPy already adheres to trademark rules,
and probably in a minimalistic way.

It is anyway good to do this for 2.7, and maybe 3.x as well.
In the ideal case, 2.8 would just have to document additions
and back-ports.

Original comment by RMTEW FULL NAME (Bitbucket: rmtew, GitHub: rmtew):

I think that the maintenance burden of modifying the original
documentation is prohibitive.

We can simply generate in a header, which says that "Stackless is not
an official Python language release." Or similar.

Cheers,
Richard.

Original comment by Anselm Kruis (Bitbucket: akruis, GitHub: akruis):

I don't want to modify the original documentation. That's to much work. But I just finished updating the Stackless Section and the Stackless source tree. Just about 100 times the word "python" in a relevant context.

Original comment by Anonymous:

Ok, so I can merge the 2.7-slp docs and just extra stackless-whatsnew etc?

Original comment by Anonymous:

In one email, I mentioned that I want to both create a stackless.exe which reports
itself as "stackless 2.8", and a python.exe, which reports itself as "python 2.7".

After my initial idea with different .dll files was killed by Anselm (thanks for proving
me wrong :-) ), I became less strict and said "python 2.7 will use the same stackless-xx-yy-zz.dll".
The idea is to ignore the binary compatibility, but to have python.exe as the same .dll,
but leaving the stackless initialisation out. I think this is enough to appear as "compatible".

Are you still aware of this?
A small problem is that the sys.versioninfo must be different, if stackless is not enabled.
I think to work a bit on patchlevel.h and use extra constants for the python and the
stackless version, and compute "constants" at .dll initialisation.

Is that ok with you, or do you want me to ann an extra fork? (which I don't like).
Other ideas, maybe?
I really would love one install that contains a "stackless" and a "python", both
compliant to copyrights etc, and with a minimally different startup stub.

Original comment by Anonymous:

this will now be soon-ish done.

The probably only needed thing is changing the version string and replacing
the executable name with python and the dll name with stackless-.dll or .so.

Original comment by Anselm Kruis (Bitbucket: akruis, GitHub: akruis):

No longer relevant