-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Warnicke (eaw) [mailto:eaw@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:08 PM
To: Richard Fontana
Cc: Tom Incorvia; spdx-legal@...; mike.milinkovich@...; SPDX; spdx-tech@...
Subject: Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

I've only ever heard it referenced as the EPL.



On Feb 29, 2012, at 8:04 PM, "Richard Fontana" <rfontana@...> wrote:

FWIW, I don't think I've ever encountered "Eclipse" meaning "Eclipse
Public License". Always EPL or the full expanded name.

- Richard



On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 07:48:09PM -0600, Tom Incorvia wrote:

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



Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct: (512) 340-1336

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

mike.milinkovich@...

blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/

twitter: @mmilinkov



Description: EclipseCon 2012







From: spdx-bounces@...
[mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Tom Incorvia
Sent: February-29-12 4:00 PM
To: spdx-legal@...; spdx-tech@...
Cc: SPDX
Subject: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse
Public License
1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"



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



Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct: (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850

Shoretel (Internal): 27015

This message has been scanned by MailController.

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

This message has been scanned by MailController - portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk