On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[email protected]> wrote: > "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >>> Sure, the PEP can be used as basis for the decision process, but >>> someone still has to make the decision to add a mirror or not >>> and these people should be appointed to by the PSF - much like we >>> have an infrastructure committee to see after the python.org site. >>> >>> The situation is a lot like with the Python trademarks: >>> The good guys always come and ask for permission. The bad guys >>> don't. >> >> With PEP 381, the bad guys won't get any attention. You can already >> run as many public mirrors of PyPI as you want, but nobody will notice. >> >> To become an official mirror, you have to ask for permission already; >> see the PEP. >> >>> In order to go after them we need a clear set of >>> rules for setting up and running a PyPI mirror and disallowing >>> setups that don't follow these rules. >> >> See the PEP. > > Like I said: the PEP can be used to document the technical requirements > of being accepted as official mirror, but it doesn't cover any > of the legal requirements the PSF will need to put in place in > order to prevent unofficial mirrors which use the content to > e.g. increase their page rank, add advertisement and other > drive-by revenue, misrepresent authorship, add malware to popular > packages, etc.
As Martin mentioned yesterday, the latter can't happen : see http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/2009-March/002018.html Tarek _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
