Rightfully so - it would be incredibly confusing to have a third-party python with the same name but maintained by a different group of people. There's no "right" to the python name.
If you actually look at the issue discussing this, you can see that Guido is being more than amenable and the responses are honestly verging on childish.
Well put. That's been my feeling about all of this in a nutshell. Guido was a saint for putting up with all this as long as he did. Some people really need to get a grip.
Sure, I agree generally (which is part of why forking the language under the same name was a poor choice!). However, python.org has demonstrably zero interest in the Python 2 language and CPython runtime. So they can both say "see, there's no interest in community maintained Python 2" and also prevent that community from organizing itself under the name everyone uses at the same time.
IMO, Python 2 is a genericized trademark like Kleenex at this point.
> IMO, Python 2 is a genericized trademark like Kleenex at this point.
Kleenex is often used to refer to facial tissue, regardless of manufacturer of the facial tissue.
Python 2 is used to refer to one of the releases of the CPython 2 interpreter, most often the latest release, with earlier releases typically referred to with their first point (e.g. "2.6" as I've seen elsewhere in this thread). People rarely refer to Pypy or Jython as "Python 2", at least in my experience. They may refer to compatibility with a point release of the official CPython.
For example, Pypy describes itself as with the following:
> PyPy implements Python 2.7.13 and 3.6.9. It supports all of the core language, passing the Python 2.7 test suite and most of the 3.6 test suite.
They're not saying PyPy is Python 2, rather that it implements the programming language represented by point release Python 2.7.13. Elsewhere, they talk about compatibility with Python. Nowhere do the PyPy developers refer to their product as "Python 2".
That would be a nightmare of an experience for the developer community. No way. Absolutely do not want a hundred syntax-incompatible clones in various partial states of development.
If you actually look at the issue discussing this, you can see that Guido is being more than amenable and the responses are honestly verging on childish.