Date   

Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...>
 

FWIW, Fossology uses Eclipse_v1.0 but I think EPL works as well and folks would get use to it over time. My primary question/concern is the effect of changes like this on backward compatibility and general user confusion. On the other hand, if we are going to change it I suppose now is the time since there is probably not a lot of SPDX 1.0 implemented yet.

-Scott

-----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


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Mike Milinkovich
 

I had no idea we were such troublemakers!

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfontana@...]
Sent: March-02-12 10:26 AM
To: Tom Incorvia
Cc: Ed Warnicke (eaw); spdx-legal@...;
mike.milinkovich@...; SPDX; spdx-tech@...
Subject: Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse
PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Just as an amusing followup, today I was on an email thread where someone
referred to the EPL as "an Eclipse license". But I think that must reflect the
person's relative lack of familiarity with the EPL. In the same thread everyone
else referred to it as the EPL.

Actually, come to think of it, "an Eclipse license" is technically not incorrect
since the Eclipse Foundation has at least one other Eclipse branded license,
the Eclipse Distribution License 1.0 -- though this is essentially identical to the
3-clause BSD license and may be entirley identical in an SPDX sense. But it
also shows that it could be misleading to refer to the EPL as "Eclipse 1.0" since
there *is* another Eclipse 1.0 license. :)

- Richard



On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:44:01PM -0600, 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
”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


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Richard Fontana
 

Just as an amusing followup, today I was on an email thread where
someone referred to the EPL as "an Eclipse license". But I think that
must reflect the person's relative lack of familiarity with the
EPL. In the same thread everyone else referred to it as the EPL.

Actually, come to think of it, "an Eclipse license" is technically not
incorrect since the Eclipse Foundation has at least one other Eclipse
branded license, the Eclipse Distribution License 1.0 -- though this
is essentially identical to the 3-clause BSD license and may be
entirley identical in an SPDX sense. But it also shows that it could
be misleading to refer to the EPL as "Eclipse 1.0" since there *is*
another Eclipse 1.0 license. :)

- Richard

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:44:01PM -0600, 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 ”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


Info on SPDX participation at LF Collab Summit (April 3-5)

Kim Weins
 


Hi all,

Here are the details that are shaping up for the Collab Summit.  The schedule is not finalized, so there could be some changes, but here is what we know as of now.

  • We will have an SPDX overview session (presented by Mark Gisi) most likely as part of the legal track on Wednesday.
    • Legal track is being organized by Bradley Kuhn
  • We may get an opportunity to be part of the keynote (still TBD)
  • We will have a room all day Thursday for our face-to-face meetings
  • We are trying to get a smaller room for the tech team for a half day on Wed..  We're not sure if we will get this or not.  If we do, it will be at the same time as the Legal track on Wednesday -- so you would have to choose between the legal track or the tech team meeting.

LF should be posting the schedule next week on the website.

We will need to develop an agenda for what we want to cover on Thursday.  I assume we will want some time for each of the workstreams.

Kim


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
 

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


Re: LF SPDX link broken

Martin Michlmayr
 

Thanks, Scott. I've informed the LF.

* Scott Lamons <scott.lamons@...> [2012-03-01 01:52]:

Hi Folks,

Just thought I would point out that the SPDX link on the LF Open Compliance Program<http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/compliance> page appears to be broken.

-Scott

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
--
Martin Michlmayr
Open Source Program Office, Hewlett-Packard


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Tom Incorvia
 

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 ”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


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
 

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


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Richard Fontana
 

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


LF SPDX link broken

Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...>
 

Hi Folks,

 

Just thought I would point out that the SPDX link on the LF Open Compliance Program page appears to be broken.    

 

-Scott

 

 


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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Manbeck, Jack
 

I agree. I’m surprised someone didn’t recognize EPL (or even EDL which we probably need to add….). Could be they were not familiar with Eclipse?

 

Jack

 


From: spdx-tech-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-tech-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Brian Fox
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:19 PM
To: Tom Incorvia
Cc: spdx-tech@...; spdx-legal@...; SPDX
Subject: Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

 

In my circles it's more common to refer to it as EPL instead of Eclipse. In fact even the Eclipse foundation refers to it as EPL: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Tom Incorvia <tom.incorvia@...> wrote:

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

 


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

villalu@...
 

For what it is worth, my experience is that people affiliated with Eclipse in some way refer to it as EPL, but that "casual" people who come across it in another context (e.g., commonly in diligence) don't use the acronym, and instead refer to it as the Eclipse license or something along those lines.


If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@..., and do not use or disseminate such information.  Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, any tax advice in this email may not be used to avoid tax penalties or to promote, market or recommend any matter herein.


From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:16 PM
To: 'Tom Incorvia'; spdx-legal@...; spdx-tech@...
Cc: 'SPDX'
Subject: RE: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 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

 

 

 

 

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.

 



Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Mike Milinkovich
 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 


Re: Mailing List?

Martin Michlmayr
 

a) Please have that person contact me and I'll check the mail logs.

b) In order to recover your password, go to
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx enter your email address
in the text box next to "Unsubscribe or edit options", click that
button and then go to "Password reminder".

* Scott Lamons <scott.lamons@...> [2012-02-29 20:02]:

I was talking to someone who was trying to join the SPDX mailing list<https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx> a while back but never received a response. Does anyone know the what the status is? I'd check the member list but I forgot my password and I can't seem to locate a recovery link :(

-Scott
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
--
Martin Michlmayr
Open Source Program Office, Hewlett-Packard


Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Brian Fox
 

In my circles it's more common to refer to it as EPL instead of Eclipse. In fact even the Eclipse foundation refers to it as EPL: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Tom Incorvia <tom.incorvia@...> wrote:

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



Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

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

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850

Shoretel (Internal): 27015

This message has been scanned by MailController.

 


Re: Mailing List?

Armijn Hemel <armijn@...>
 

On 02/29/2012 09:02 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) wrote:

I was talking to someone who was trying to join the SPDX mailing list a while back but never received a response.   Does anyone know the what the status is?     I'd check the member list but I forgot my password and I can't seem to locate a recovery link :(


During the linux.com outage the fossbazaar.org mailinglists were also offline and it took a while before everything was back up. Perhaps that someone tried to join during that time. I think everything should be fine now though.

armijn

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     armijn@... || http://www.gpl-violations.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mailing List?

Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...>
 

I was talking to someone who was trying to join the SPDX mailing list a while back but never received a response.   Does anyone know the what the status is?     I'd check the member list but I forgot my password and I can't seem to locate a recovery link :(

 

-Scott

 


SPDX General Meeting this Thursday & SAVE THE DATES

Philip Odence
 

Save the Dates:
  • We will have a working meeting at the Linux Collab Summit in San Francisco, April 4-5
  • There will also be an SPDX event at Cisco in San Jose, April 6. The purpose will be outreach and education. Please let Kim Weins  kim.weins@... know if you have contacts at other companies in the Bay Area whom we should invite.


Meeting Time: Feb 23, 8am PST / 10 am CST / 11am EST / 15:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

Conf call dial-in:
Conference code:  7812589502
Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada):  (877) 435-0230
International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732
For those dialing in from other regions, a list of toll free numbers can be found: 
https://www.intercallonline.com/portlets/scheduling/viewNumbers/viewNumber.do?ownerNumber=6053870&audioType=RP&viewGa=false&ga=OFF

 
Administrative Agenda
Attendance
Approve Minutes   

Technical Team Report - Kate

Legal Team Report - Jilayne

Business Team Report - Kim

Cross Functional Issues – Phil

Future of Website

1061 - 1080 of 1598