-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Tom Incorvia; Ed Warnicke (eaw); Richard Fontana
Cc: spdx-tech@...; spdx-legal@...; SPDX
Subject: Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

YES! Thanks for the plug, Tom. Indeed, it would be great to have more
voices on a more regular basis. The next legal workstream call is this
coming Wednesday at 8am PT/ 11am ET
We will be discussing various license list issues, so please join!

Updated dial-in info:
1.866.740.1260 or +001.303.248.0285
Access code: 2404545

** This is a new dial-in number ** I will send another reminder to the email
list the day prior as well.

Jilayne


On 2/29/12 8:44 PM, "Tom Incorvia" <tom.incorvia@...> wrote:

Thanks all, your replies are truly appreciated.

I withdraw the request to change the License identifier for the Eclipse Public
License from EPL-1.0 to Eclipse-1.0.

Separately, we are looking for knowledgeable individuals like those who
replied to participate more fully with SPDX. Please consider joining one of
the SPDX working teams.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Incorvia
tom.incorvia@...
Direct:  (512) 340-1336
Mobile: (408) 499 6850
Shoretel (Internal): 27015

-----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 ²Eclipse
1.0² term have included many substantial contributors to the Eclipse project
(for instance, Borland Software).



Let¹s let this cook for one more day.



If the feedback continues as it has, I¹ll 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 ³EPL-1.0² to
³Eclipse-1.0².



I suggest this because ³Eclipse² 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,
let¹s 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
_______________________________________________

Spdx mailing

list

Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...
720 240 4545 | phone
Follow me on Twitter @jilaynelovejoy

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021
www.openlogic.com
Follow OpenLogic on Twitter@openlogic




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