Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"
|
Tom Incorvia
Thanks Mike,
The Eclipse Foundation certainly gets the big vote regarding how their license is referred to.
My experience is primarily commercial ISVs in the tools space, about a dozen, ranging in yearly revenue from $50M to $500M. In written correspondence over a period of several years, the phrase "Eclipse 1.0" is used more than 15x "EPL 1.0". The folks using the ”Eclipse 1.0” term have included many substantial contributors to the Eclipse project (for instance, Borland Software).
Let’s let this cook for one more day.
If the feedback continues as it has, I’ll simply withdraw the request. Like you, I am surprised at the disparity in usage of the abbreviated term – I rarely see EPL, and assumed that this suggestion would pass through the SPDX group as more of an FYI.
Thanks again -- it is great to have community postings so the broadest view is represented.
Tom
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:16 PM To: Tom Incorvia; spdx-legal@...; spdx-tech@... Cc: 'SPDX' Subject: RE: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"
Tom,
FWIW, It is certainly news to me that people refer to the EPL as "Eclipse". I have universally heard it referred to as the EPL. I have literally never heard it referred to as Eclipse.
I don't have a strong feeling about this one way or another. I just find it surprising that my experience is so contrary to yours.
Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/ twitter: @mmilinkov
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Tom Incorvia
Hello SPDX license list interested parties,
I would like to propose that we change the License Identifier for the Eclipse Public License 1.0 on the SPDX License List from “EPL-1.0” to “Eclipse-1.0”.
I suggest this because “Eclipse” is how the license is commonly referred to.
Secondarily, I have recently received 2 calls when documents referred to EPL-1.0, and the Identifier was simply not visually recognized by the user (yes, they could have clicked the link, but if Eclipse is the common usage, let’s go with it unless there is a cost).
Any concerns?
Thanks,
Tom
This message has been scanned by MailController.
|
|
|
