Yes, and IBM also originally wrote Postfix. Of course, using Postfix with Postgres is easy: http://www.postfix.org/PGSQL_README.html. Or apt-get install postfix-pgsql. I can't address whether than includes support for "hashes and Btrees", since I haven't tried, but seems implausible that it wouldn't. Postfix has been developed as open-source for a long time! OP does seem remarkably confused. But I'm not completely sure whether he's simply blaming the wrong company, or just plain wrong. I suspect the latter, but can't prove it.
Well, considering that AOLserver gives you TCL for free, adding Perl seems like a bit of an impedance mismatch. Aside from that, nothing.
(Note, I only know this because I was the Debian TCL maintainer for several years; which is why I know that AOLServer is A) free software and B) written in TCL. Otherwise, I would have assumed you were joking.)
So authors can't possibly want to provide for their children or grandchildren? Having known many older authors, I assure you that's not true.
If copyright expired at death, what incentive would P.G. Wodehouse or SF Grandmaster Jack Williamson (both of whom continued writing into their late eighties or early nineties) have had?
Which is why I support fixed-length copyright terms, rather than life or life-plus.
Man I love people who offer opinions about language without even checking the most basic references. (Which, in my experience, is about 95% of all self-appointed "grammar nazis").
Collins English Dictionary:
meteor n 1. (Astronomy) a very small meteoroid that has entered the earth's atmosphere. Such objects have speeds approaching 70 kilometres per second 2. (Astronomy) Also called shooting star or falling star; the bright streak of light appearing in the sky due to the incandescence of such a body heated by friction at its surface
(Bolding mine.)
So, you were both right, but insofar as you were trying to suggest that OP was wrong, you were wrong. Heck, his definition was listed first!
I now fully expect you to fall back on the "professional lexicograpers don't know as much about language as my high-school teacher, who is the ultimate arbiter of all matters linguistic!", which is the usual defense of most misguided grammar nazis (a phrase which is very nearly redundant).:)
Modifications to a GPL-licensed program must be released under terms that allow the modified work as a whole continue to be licensed under the GPL. Any GPL-compatible license makes this possible, including the public domain.
If by "first", you mean, several decades after the highly influential The Weapon Shops of Isher (1951, but based on stories written starting in 1941), then yes. Though that's a funny definition of "first" you've got there.:)
Actually, IBM, like most big companies, will pick-and-choose its fights. But yes, they're clearly willing to spend far more than it costs to settle in order to discourage trolls and frivolous suits. If they didn't, they'd be nibbled to death. But it's far more cost-effective for them to do so only to a certain percentage of litigants.
Of course, SCO made several missteps right off the bat that made them an easy candidate to choose for fighting back. IBM had already invested at least a billion in Linux by the time SCO came a long. So there was a whole lot more at stake than just the cost of settling. Furthermore, they knew that both Caldera and oldSCO were regular contributors to Linux--under the GPL. And they knew what their UNIX license from AT&T said, and they knew they hadn't violated that license.
Re:Why didn't it shut down in 2009?
on
Groklaw Turns Ten
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it started just before the SCO fiasco, and was originally unrelated. However, it quickly refocused on SCO once that whole mess started, and from then on, things went pretty much as you said. However, I think it's interesting that it wasn't originally about SCO.
The oldest article in the site archives is about Grokster. The second article is about SCO. So, yeah, it didn't take long to shift focus....:)
(The articles are also numbers 3 and 6 respectively. I'm not sure if that indicates that at least four articles simply haven't been archived, or if GL simply uses non-sequential numbering, but either way....)
You're probably not the only one, but that doesn't mean that the set of people who think it's a terrible idea are any less misguided or wrong. This is normal and standard and most tools for tracking versions assume version numbers work this way. Including the tools that do dynamic linking at run-time for you. In fact, for libraries, it's mandatory to do this if you have more than ten backwards-compatible releases in a series. A change in the second number of a library's version indicates that it's backwards-compatible but not forwards-compatible. (Forwards-compatible changes get a change in the third digit; incompatible changes get a change in the first.)
The only people likely to be confused to the degree that you suggest are non-technical idiots in the commercial press, and they'll make illiterate mistakes about all sorts of things no matter what we do. Hundreds of thousands of software projects do this sort of thing regularly (as AC pointed out, linux v. 1.1.10 was released in 1994). It's "three dot ten", not "three point one zero". Version numbers aren't decimals.
Of course, a lot of projects make sure to always list all three numbers (e.g. 3.10.0). Which I admit I prefer. But it's still the start of the 3.10 series.
So you prefer other people to do your work for you? If you had typed the same number of characters (not counting all the characters you had to type to try to defend your action) into Google, you could have pasted the results here, informed people yourself, and looked smart.
Although I suppose with a nick like yours, looking smart isn't your primary objective, and I'm cool with that.:)
And wow, it scares me that someone on Slashdot doesn't know this and had to ask. It's not like it's some big secret that's being supressed or something. The question comes up pretty much every time the hazards of combining cell phones and driving are discussed, and the answer is always the same. Heck, typing in "is talking to a passenger as distracting as talking to a hands-free cell-phone?" into Google gives pages and pages that answer the question.
They don't do any testing at all. Why aren't they up-front about that? Why isn't THAT in their FAQ? I guess it's hard to fleece gullible marks in to supporting your efforts when you flat-out tell them that you're doing nothing at all!
What on earth are you on about? The test is not their purpose in life. The foundation's purpose is education, and as far as I can tell from a superficial glance, they are quite active in that. Your obsession with the million-dollar challenge seems quite unhealthy.
It caused the REAL Jose Alvarez quite a bit of trouble! He even missed his own daughter's wedding because of Pena's criminal behavior.
Fixed that for you.
Oh, I see. He missed his own daughter's wedding! Yes, some third-party to the whole affair definitely deserves the death penalty for a crime as heinous as that--a crime so horrific that it failed to show up in any google search.
Ok, so from what I can gather, Randi may have once lied to protect a friend. Yes, that makes the whole Foundation guilty. Not!
Hell, Mother Theresa did some morally questionable things in her life. You don't get to be 85 without running across a few opportunities for making dubious decisions. And Randi's definitely no Mother Therersa. But I still fail to see how any of this is relevant to Randi's educational activities. Hitler ate sugar! I've broken a few laws in my life as well.
No, they're not. Have you even looked at their financials? Can you give me basic information about their activities
No, but I'm sure I could if I looked.
such as "how many notarized applications for the challenge were revived in 2012".
Ah, there's your idiotic obsession with the stupid challenge again. Once again, running the challenge is not the Foundation's purpose. They are not here to test every deluded idiot who believes he might have psychic powers. They are not a research organization seeking to find actual psychics. They are here to educate people about scammers. And guess what--the scammers don't apply to be tested. Which makes the challenge successul, even without any applicants. It is serving its intended purpose doing exactly what it's doing. It looks like a wild success to me.
Maybe you should stop the hero worship
Hero worship? I approve of what the foundation is doing; I think the real frauds and scammers that you seem to be trying to defend are utterly detestable scum. The psychic surgeons are the worst, but even the less...murdery ones like John Edward and Silvia Brown are filthy scum that prey on the weak and vulnerable in society. I don't know or care all that much about Randi, but anyone who is willing to stand up and challenge those fuckers is all right in my book. And against that you offer...some guy missed his daughter's wedding. Yes, that's comparable to killing people or stealing their life's savings.
And your obsession with the utterly unimportant question of how many tests they run each year has to be the stupidest complaint I've heard in I-don't-know how long. Either you're a True Believer who wants to discredit Randi by any means necessary, or you're just an idiot. I don't know and frankly don't care. Unlike you, this is not a topic that obsesses me. I simply find your lack of critical thinking and your insane hyperbole rather appalling. That's the only reason I responded.
As long as people like Silvia Brown and the Long Island Medium continue to get TV shows to help support their actual, harmful fraud, I will applaud Randi's activities. No one else seems to be challenging these scum anywhere near as successfully. I don't really care about his personal life that much, but it's obvious to anyone who isn't a supporter of those shits that what Randi and his foundation is doing is a good thing.
The JREF is also suspiciously silent on the number of preliminary tests conducted every year.
No they're not. Nobody has taken the preliminary since they introduced the "you must have reasonable documentation of something worth testing" requirement a while back. There are plenty of ways to provide documentation: letters from a local college or university, passing the tests offered by many smaller skeptic groups (which will give you some cash to continue your efforts), or even mainstream media news coverage. I only looked into it briefly out of curiousity, and I was able to find that out with just a little bit of investigation. The fact that you think it's some great mystery doesn't speak well to your investigative powers.
They do, however, try to run at least one informal test each year at TAM.
He's already shown that he's willing to defraud the federal government (example: Jose Alvarez).
A publicity stunt designed to show that people are still too gullible, perpetrated on Australian media somehow magically becomes "defrauding" the "federal government"? Not only are your facts wrong, but your butt-hurtedness is showing. Which sacred cow of yours did he gore?
That they're completely silent on the activities related to their most well-known and well publicized function speaks volumes.
A) They're not completely silent on it, and B) however well-known the million-dollar-challenge, it's still nothing but a publicity stunt that has little or nothing to do with the Randi Foundation's primary purpose of educating the public. It serves its purpose quite well just by sitting there, unchallenged. The Randi Foundation's actual activities are well-documented and publicized. If they weren't, the Foundation would be in serious legal hot water.
The use of hyperbole does not invalidate an argument, much as we might wish it to. What it does is make it harder for those who disagree to hear the argument, which is unfortunate. The problem with Godwin is not that comparisons to the Nazis are necessarily incorrect; it's that it's such an emotionally loaded claim that reason flies out the door at that point.
No one has ever taken the formal test. Not one person.
That's right. Not one person has been able to pass the preliminary testing, which is designed to see if there's enough of an effect to warrant full-scale testing. So?
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
Why should they keep track of every idiot with ridiculous claims who can't even show plausible evidence that there's something possibly worth investigation?
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger.
Citation, please? This claim has been making the rounds, and it seems to be based on one case where the applicant violated the agreed-upon protocol by using her cell-phone during the testing. She claimed she was just answering a text, but refused to continue testing without the cell phone. Yes, her preliminary results would have warranted further investigation if she had followed protocol, but the fact that she refused to continue without her phone is quite suspicious (and cannot be blamed on JREF).
If you've got something more substantial than that, please present it.
You can copyright the implementation--which Google didn't copy--but not the names.
Let's put it this way: Oracle freely admits that a programming language is not copyrightable. But they want to claim that an API is something more than an extension to the language. That somehow "max(a, b,...)" magically becomes copyrightable if and only if it's not built into the language.
This gets really tricky with a language like Tcl, where the syntax is free-form enough that there's no obvious way to distinguish add-ons from built-ins, and, in fact, things frequently migrate from being add-ons to being part of the language.
There is little precedent, but it all uniformly against copyrighting APIs. The judge didn't make some new law. He, in fact, refused to make a new law declaring APIs copyrightable, which would have been completely without precedent. Not just mostly.
I'm not sure what you're saying. The fact that Microsoft has been using the term "Windows" for their OS should make it untrademarkable by anyone else. The fact that they have actually trademarked it doesn't affect that. (Though they hastily dropped a suit against Lindows when the trademark was challenged, just so the question of whether it's really trademarkable at all never came up in court. At least in the US.) The simple fact that they've been using the term for so long is what makes it untrademarkable by anyone else. Registration is the just the gravy that makes it easy for them to prove they've been using the term.
That's how Linus ended up with the trademark to Linux. Someone else tried to claim it, and he demonstrated that he'd been using the term for his software for years, so the PTO re-assigned the trademark to him.
The domain matters. Computer software would definitely be out. Anything else computer related is probably out, but I didn't want to leap too far in my claims.
I'd say the fact that he thinks Python-the-language is something American is proof that he's pretty much completely unaware of it. Unless Holland was annexed by the US recently, while I wasn't looking, I think it's Dutch.:)
Not only that, but a registered trademark only applies to the country it's registered in. To officially register your trademark world-wide, you'd need to pay 193 different registration fees in god-only-knows how many different forms of currency.
Fortunately, there are all sorts of treaties about recognizing other countries' trademarks, and the US doesn't require registration (though it can make life easier if there's a challenge).
Basically, though, the fact that python-the-language has been using that name for decades in the EU should make it untrademarkable by anyone else, at least for anything related to computer software. (Python brand t-shirts will remain unaffected.) It would confuse consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and IBM also originally wrote Postfix. Of course, using Postfix with Postgres is easy: http://www.postfix.org/PGSQL_README.html. Or apt-get install postfix-pgsql. I can't address whether than includes support for "hashes and Btrees", since I haven't tried, but seems implausible that it wouldn't. Postfix has been developed as open-source for a long time! OP does seem remarkably confused. But I'm not completely sure whether he's simply blaming the wrong company, or just plain wrong. I suspect the latter, but can't prove it.
Well, considering that AOLserver gives you TCL for free, adding Perl seems like a bit of an impedance mismatch. Aside from that, nothing.
(Note, I only know this because I was the Debian TCL maintainer for several years; which is why I know that AOLServer is A) free software and B) written in TCL. Otherwise, I would have assumed you were joking.)
So authors can't possibly want to provide for their children or grandchildren? Having known many older authors, I assure you that's not true.
If copyright expired at death, what incentive would P.G. Wodehouse or SF Grandmaster Jack Williamson (both of whom continued writing into their late eighties or early nineties) have had?
Which is why I support fixed-length copyright terms, rather than life or life-plus.
Man I love people who offer opinions about language without even checking the most basic references. (Which, in my experience, is about 95% of all self-appointed "grammar nazis").
Collins English Dictionary:
meteor n
1. (Astronomy) a very small meteoroid that has entered the earth's atmosphere. Such objects have speeds approaching 70 kilometres per second
2. (Astronomy) Also called shooting star or falling star; the bright streak of light appearing in the sky due to the incandescence of such a body heated by friction at its surface
(Bolding mine.)
So, you were both right, but insofar as you were trying to suggest that OP was wrong, you were wrong. Heck, his definition was listed first!
I now fully expect you to fall back on the "professional lexicograpers don't know as much about language as my high-school teacher, who is the ultimate arbiter of all matters linguistic!", which is the usual defense of most misguided grammar nazis (a phrase which is very nearly redundant). :)
Modifications to a GPL-licensed program must be released under terms that allow the modified work as a whole continue to be licensed under the GPL. Any GPL-compatible license makes this possible, including the public domain.
If by "first", you mean, several decades after the highly influential The Weapon Shops of Isher (1951, but based on stories written starting in 1941), then yes. Though that's a funny definition of "first" you've got there. :)
Wolfram Alpha? Seriously, you need an online resource for that?
Actually, IBM, like most big companies, will pick-and-choose its fights. But yes, they're clearly willing to spend far more than it costs to settle in order to discourage trolls and frivolous suits. If they didn't, they'd be nibbled to death. But it's far more cost-effective for them to do so only to a certain percentage of litigants.
Of course, SCO made several missteps right off the bat that made them an easy candidate to choose for fighting back. IBM had already invested at least a billion in Linux by the time SCO came a long. So there was a whole lot more at stake than just the cost of settling. Furthermore, they knew that both Caldera and oldSCO were regular contributors to Linux--under the GPL. And they knew what their UNIX license from AT&T said, and they knew they hadn't violated that license.
Actually, it started just before the SCO fiasco, and was originally unrelated. However, it quickly refocused on SCO once that whole mess started, and from then on, things went pretty much as you said. However, I think it's interesting that it wasn't originally about SCO.
The oldest article in the site archives is about Grokster. The second article is about SCO. So, yeah, it didn't take long to shift focus.... :)
(The articles are also numbers 3 and 6 respectively. I'm not sure if that indicates that at least four articles simply haven't been archived, or if GL simply uses non-sequential numbering, but either way....)
You're probably not the only one, but that doesn't mean that the set of people who think it's a terrible idea are any less misguided or wrong. This is normal and standard and most tools for tracking versions assume version numbers work this way. Including the tools that do dynamic linking at run-time for you. In fact, for libraries, it's mandatory to do this if you have more than ten backwards-compatible releases in a series. A change in the second number of a library's version indicates that it's backwards-compatible but not forwards-compatible. (Forwards-compatible changes get a change in the third digit; incompatible changes get a change in the first.)
The only people likely to be confused to the degree that you suggest are non-technical idiots in the commercial press, and they'll make illiterate mistakes about all sorts of things no matter what we do. Hundreds of thousands of software projects do this sort of thing regularly (as AC pointed out, linux v. 1.1.10 was released in 1994). It's "three dot ten", not "three point one zero". Version numbers aren't decimals.
Of course, a lot of projects make sure to always list all three numbers (e.g. 3.10.0). Which I admit I prefer. But it's still the start of the 3.10 series.
Actually, patenting biological processes, as long as they're actually inventions and not just discoveries, makes a whole lot more sense.
Or maybe he's a 3+-armed alien, you insensitive clod. :)
(It is clear that he's not familiar with the common geek saying, "on the gripping hand", though.)
So you prefer other people to do your work for you? If you had typed the same number of characters (not counting all the characters you had to type to try to defend your action) into Google, you could have pasted the results here, informed people yourself, and looked smart.
Although I suppose with a nick like yours, looking smart isn't your primary objective, and I'm cool with that. :)
And wow, it scares me that someone on Slashdot doesn't know this and had to ask. It's not like it's some big secret that's being supressed or something. The question comes up pretty much every time the hazards of combining cell phones and driving are discussed, and the answer is always the same. Heck, typing in "is talking to a passenger as distracting as talking to a hands-free cell-phone?" into Google gives pages and pages that answer the question.
They don't do any testing at all. Why aren't they up-front about that? Why isn't THAT in their FAQ? I guess it's hard to fleece gullible marks in to supporting your efforts when you flat-out tell them that you're doing nothing at all!
What on earth are you on about? The test is not their purpose in life. The foundation's purpose is education, and as far as I can tell from a superficial glance, they are quite active in that. Your obsession with the million-dollar challenge seems quite unhealthy.
It caused the REAL Jose Alvarez quite a bit of trouble! He even missed his own daughter's wedding because of Pena's criminal behavior.
Fixed that for you.
Oh, I see. He missed his own daughter's wedding! Yes, some third-party to the whole affair definitely deserves the death penalty for a crime as heinous as that--a crime so horrific that it failed to show up in any google search.
Ok, so from what I can gather, Randi may have once lied to protect a friend. Yes, that makes the whole Foundation guilty. Not!
Hell, Mother Theresa did some morally questionable things in her life. You don't get to be 85 without running across a few opportunities for making dubious decisions. And Randi's definitely no Mother Therersa. But I still fail to see how any of this is relevant to Randi's educational activities. Hitler ate sugar! I've broken a few laws in my life as well.
No, they're not. Have you even looked at their financials? Can you give me basic information about their activities
No, but I'm sure I could if I looked.
such as "how many notarized applications for the challenge were revived in 2012".
Ah, there's your idiotic obsession with the stupid challenge again. Once again, running the challenge is not the Foundation's purpose. They are not here to test every deluded idiot who believes he might have psychic powers. They are not a research organization seeking to find actual psychics. They are here to educate people about scammers. And guess what--the scammers don't apply to be tested. Which makes the challenge successul, even without any applicants. It is serving its intended purpose doing exactly what it's doing. It looks like a wild success to me.
Maybe you should stop the hero worship
Hero worship? I approve of what the foundation is doing; I think the real frauds and scammers that you seem to be trying to defend are utterly detestable scum. The psychic surgeons are the worst, but even the less...murdery ones like John Edward and Silvia Brown are filthy scum that prey on the weak and vulnerable in society. I don't know or care all that much about Randi, but anyone who is willing to stand up and challenge those fuckers is all right in my book. And against that you offer...some guy missed his daughter's wedding. Yes, that's comparable to killing people or stealing their life's savings.
And your obsession with the utterly unimportant question of how many tests they run each year has to be the stupidest complaint I've heard in I-don't-know how long. Either you're a True Believer who wants to discredit Randi by any means necessary, or you're just an idiot. I don't know and frankly don't care. Unlike you, this is not a topic that obsesses me. I simply find your lack of critical thinking and your insane hyperbole rather appalling. That's the only reason I responded.
As long as people like Silvia Brown and the Long Island Medium continue to get TV shows to help support their actual, harmful fraud, I will applaud Randi's activities. No one else seems to be challenging these scum anywhere near as successfully. I don't really care about his personal life that much, but it's obvious to anyone who isn't a supporter of those shits that what Randi and his foundation is doing is a good thing.
No one has ever taken the official challenge.
Because no one has ever passed the preliminaries.
The JREF is also suspiciously silent on the number of preliminary tests conducted every year.
No they're not. Nobody has taken the preliminary since they introduced the "you must have reasonable documentation of something worth testing" requirement a while back. There are plenty of ways to provide documentation: letters from a local college or university, passing the tests offered by many smaller skeptic groups (which will give you some cash to continue your efforts), or even mainstream media news coverage. I only looked into it briefly out of curiousity, and I was able to find that out with just a little bit of investigation. The fact that you think it's some great mystery doesn't speak well to your investigative powers.
They do, however, try to run at least one informal test each year at TAM.
He's already shown that he's willing to defraud the federal government (example: Jose Alvarez).
A publicity stunt designed to show that people are still too gullible, perpetrated on Australian media somehow magically becomes "defrauding" the "federal government"? Not only are your facts wrong, but your butt-hurtedness is showing. Which sacred cow of yours did he gore?
That they're completely silent on the activities related to their most well-known and well publicized function speaks volumes.
A) They're not completely silent on it, and B) however well-known the million-dollar-challenge, it's still nothing but a publicity stunt that has little or nothing to do with the Randi Foundation's primary purpose of educating the public. It serves its purpose quite well just by sitting there, unchallenged. The Randi Foundation's actual activities are well-documented and publicized. If they weren't, the Foundation would be in serious legal hot water.
Speaking as someone slightly past the half-century mark, it's easy to lose track of a year here or there once you have enough piled up.
No, but all of them lower the tone of a debate, and tend to cause emotion to override reason for all parties, on both sides.
The use of hyperbole does not invalidate an argument, much as we might wish it to. What it does is make it harder for those who disagree to hear the argument, which is unfortunate. The problem with Godwin is not that comparisons to the Nazis are necessarily incorrect; it's that it's such an emotionally loaded claim that reason flies out the door at that point.
That's right. Not one person has been able to pass the preliminary testing, which is designed to see if there's enough of an effect to warrant full-scale testing. So?
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
Why should they keep track of every idiot with ridiculous claims who can't even show plausible evidence that there's something possibly worth investigation?
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger.
Citation, please? This claim has been making the rounds, and it seems to be based on one case where the applicant violated the agreed-upon protocol by using her cell-phone during the testing. She claimed she was just answering a text, but refused to continue testing without the cell phone. Yes, her preliminary results would have warranted further investigation if she had followed protocol, but the fact that she refused to continue without her phone is quite suspicious (and cannot be blamed on JREF).
If you've got something more substantial than that, please present it.
You can copyright the implementation--which Google didn't copy--but not the names.
Let's put it this way: Oracle freely admits that a programming language is not copyrightable. But they want to claim that an API is something more than an extension to the language. That somehow "max(a, b,...)" magically becomes copyrightable if and only if it's not built into the language.
This gets really tricky with a language like Tcl, where the syntax is free-form enough that there's no obvious way to distinguish add-ons from built-ins, and, in fact, things frequently migrate from being add-ons to being part of the language.
There is little precedent, but it all uniformly against copyrighting APIs. The judge didn't make some new law. He, in fact, refused to make a new law declaring APIs copyrightable, which would have been completely without precedent. Not just mostly.
I'm not sure what you're saying. The fact that Microsoft has been using the term "Windows" for their OS should make it untrademarkable by anyone else. The fact that they have actually trademarked it doesn't affect that. (Though they hastily dropped a suit against Lindows when the trademark was challenged, just so the question of whether it's really trademarkable at all never came up in court. At least in the US.) The simple fact that they've been using the term for so long is what makes it untrademarkable by anyone else. Registration is the just the gravy that makes it easy for them to prove they've been using the term.
That's how Linus ended up with the trademark to Linux. Someone else tried to claim it, and he demonstrated that he'd been using the term for his software for years, so the PTO re-assigned the trademark to him.
The domain matters. Computer software would definitely be out. Anything else computer related is probably out, but I didn't want to leap too far in my claims.
I'd say the fact that he thinks Python-the-language is something American is proof that he's pretty much completely unaware of it. Unless Holland was annexed by the US recently, while I wasn't looking, I think it's Dutch. :)
Not only that, but a registered trademark only applies to the country it's registered in. To officially register your trademark world-wide, you'd need to pay 193 different registration fees in god-only-knows how many different forms of currency.
Fortunately, there are all sorts of treaties about recognizing other countries' trademarks, and the US doesn't require registration (though it can make life easier if there's a challenge).
Basically, though, the fact that python-the-language has been using that name for decades in the EU should make it untrademarkable by anyone else, at least for anything related to computer software. (Python brand t-shirts will remain unaffected.) It would confuse consumers.