Oh, so _you're_ the guys to blame for people calling the license "Eclipse"! That explains everything. (just kidding)

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

I had no idea we were such troublemakers!

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

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

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

Thanks, Scott. I've informed the LF. * Scott Lamons <scott.lamons@...> [2012-03-01 01:52]: -- Martin Michlmayr Open Source Program Office, Hewlett-Packard

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

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

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

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

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,

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

For what it is worth, my experience is that people affiliatedwith Eclipse in some way refer to it as EPL, but that "casual" people who comeacross it in another context (e.g., commonly in diligence)

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

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

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

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

On 02/29/2012 09:02 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) wrote: During the linux.com outage the fossbazaar.org mailinglists were also offline and it took a while before

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