Talk:Jython

message: I think this article must be called just Jython rather than "Jython Programming Language". Jython is not a programming language, just an implementation of one.
-Kartik
:Done Plugwash 18:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma 

message: Could someone with more familiarity with the topic add a little depth to the licensing issues? "Complicated" is an awfully simple way to describe something, without more detail.
: I would never officially contribute anything legalese (I'd rather perform an emergency cricothyrotomy with a dull pocket knife and a crusty ball point pen found on the bathroom floor of a greasy spoon... on myself...); but, nonetheless, I can offer this tip for anyone reading this discussion.  See this historical note from a python relate site, in addition to the info on the python page.  (Jython would seem to inherit Python's licensing, being a "derivative work" (via JPython).)  In short: Python evolved under both the BeOpen.com license and CNRI license (both being some form of open source license, I believe), but as of Python 1.6.1, Python's license (and apparently Jython's license) becomes GPL-compatible:  "Following the release of Python 1.6, [...] it became clear that the ability to use Python with software available under the GNU Public License (GPL) was very desirable. CNRI and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) interacted to develop enabling wording changes to the Python license. Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions to be GPL-compatible."  So, at the very least, the article could say that Jython is released under an open source license, and perhaps beyond that could say a GPL-compatible license (which would be the most "meaningful" description.)  Note that there's a fair amount of extrapolation in my conjecture. Michael (talk|contrib)
::The statement that Jython licensing is "complicated" sure seems like an opinion to me.  Maybe instead we could say "Some consider the licensing of Jython to be complex" and then point to a site which substantiates that, or illustrates it, or explains the licensing or whatever.  Without more info, I'd be inclined to delete the sentence altogether.  I think the article would be fine without it.Harborsparrow 18:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: Also Oracle Data Integrator uses Jython:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/oracle-data-integrator/10.1.3/htdocs/documentation/oracledi_jython_reference.pdf
193.32.3.83 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of Jython in Oracle Data Integrator 

message: Current article states: "Jython, successor of JPython, is an implementation of the Python programming language written in Java."
* I think this is a rather confusing statement and not true as I understand it.  It is not "written in Java".  It "runs on the Java Platform."  Jcline0 (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Definition 

message: The infobox currently states that Jython's  initial release was 17 January 2001. This is referenced, and the supporting reference states that Jython 2.0 was released on this date. It also lists several alpha releases (as Jython) prior to this date, and several releases of JPython before that. The history section states that "Jython was initially created in late 1997..."
Listing the 2.0 release in the infobox seems somewhat arbitrary. In any event, the infobox should match what is stated in the article-proper. I'd suggest listing the first release of JPython, and noting that it was called JPython at that time, however I'm open to suggestions. Any suggestions?! 80.229.60.197 (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox - released