spdx@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Expanded

Between

and

Info on SPDX participation at LF Collab Summit (April 3-5) Kim Weins #535 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
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> #534 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
More
Re: LF SPDX link broken Martin Michlmayr #533 Thanks, Scott. I've informed the LF. * Scott Lamons <scott.lamons@...> [2012-03-01 01:52]: toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Tom Incorvia #530 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 toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----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
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> #529 I've only ever heard it referenced as the EPL. toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Richard Fontana #528 FWIW, I don't think I've ever encountered "Eclipse" meaning "Eclipse Public License". Always EPL or the full expanded name. - Richard toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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
More All Messages By This Member
LF SPDX link broken Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...> #527 Hi Folks, Just thought I would point out that the SPDX link on the LF Open Compliance Program page appears to be broken. -Scott
More
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Tom Incorvia #526 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 toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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.
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Manbeck, Jack #525 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 toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" villalu@... #532 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. toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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.
More
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Mike Milinkovich #524 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 toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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.
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Mailing List? Martin Michlmayr #523 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]: toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Brian Fox #531 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 toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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
More All Messages By This Member
Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse Public License 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0" Tom Incorvia #522 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.
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Mailing List? Armijn Hemel <armijn@...> #521 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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
More
Mailing List? Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...> #520 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
More
SPDX General Meeting this Thursday & SAVE THE DATES Philip Odence #519 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 http://www.spdx.org/wiki/20120212-general-meeting-minutes Technical Team Report - Kate Legal Team Report - Jilayne Business Team Report - Kim Cross Functional Issues – Phil toggle quoted message Show quoted text Future of Website
More All Messages By This Member
SAVE THE DATE: SPDX Forum April 6 in San Jose Kim Weins #518 Hi All The Biz Team has been planning a meeting targeted at potential SPDX users. The idea is to begin to socialize companies to the ideas of SPDX and get them thinking about how it can help them in their compliance programs. Below are some of the details of the meeting and agenda. Please mark your calendars to save the date. The meeting is the day after the Collab Summit. We hope to have registration up by the end of February. If you are at an end user company, we will also want you to invite a few of your suppliers and/or customers to attend. Kim SPDX Forum: Managing Open Source Software Licenses with Suppliers and Customers Friday April 6 in Bay Area Location: Cisco in San Jose 9-3 (last bit is networking) Room will fit 60-75 people Agenda (Rough) Stage Setting on OSS Compliance - 40 minutes Stats, quotes, what are companies doing today, define the problem - Mark Radcliffe? Discussion: The Challenges of OSS Compliance Today 30 mins Discussion at tables and then present info to the group SPDX Primer: What is SPDX and How Can it Help - 40 mins SPDX team End User Panel: How SPDX fits into a Corporate Compliance Program -- 1 hrs Cisco, HP, WindRiver Getting Started with SPDX preso 40 minutes (over lunch) SPDX structure Spreadsheet License List SPDX Tooling Discussion: Challenges and Approaches to Implementing SPDX - 30 minutes What's Next for SPDX - Interactive session - 30 minute Preso on what's on the table and hot issues Q&A /Discussion Invitation to paticipate in SPDX Target Invitees People involved with OSS Compliance activities compliance, procurement/supply chain, legal, Embedded sw or ISVs Include smaller software suppliers, not just bigger people Invitations LF lists (mailing ahead of time, invite at conference) Jim Zemlin (reach out to LF members) Smaller people thru VCs (Gary) Mark Radcliffe SPDX members - invite suppliers and or customers Could we webcast? Might be a cost? - Steve will check into it
More All Messages By This Member
Re: Today's SPDX General Meeting RUFFIN MICHEL #517 Phil and all, I know the SPDX mailing list is not the best mailing list to do this request but I would like to launch a new initiative on FOSS governance standardisation, can someone tell me what is the best way for that ? ALU since 3 years is putting in all its contracts with its suppliers (FOSS distributors or proprietary software vendor) some clauses relative to FOSS. We would like to standardize this so we will spend much less time in negotiations of contracts and it will become a common practice (note that we start to receive similar conditions from our customers). The text is short there is only 5 clauses + a definition of what is FOSS but the amount of work beyond that is important because the legal text of our clauses has evolved a lot and been clarified over time with the experience of negotiations. Specially having a good definition of FOSS easy to accept by other companies has been challenging. See the definition bellow. The clauses are not fancy and are being accepted more and more easily by our suppliers (and we have hundred of them). Quickly they say 1) we need to get the list of FOSS and their license coming with the product (on SPDX standard if possible in the future) 2) the supplier is in compliance with FOSS licenses and if there is contradiction between the contract (between us and the supplier) and FOSS license, we can apply the FOSS license conditions 3) if FOSS license request source code availability we can get it 4) We need to have packaging information: e.g. what information we need to put in our documentation to respect FOSS license 5) Under which license the software is licensed to us (some licenses such as MIT or BSD allow sublicensing, while GPL or LGPL do not). For instance the supplier can deliver to us a FOSS under MIT license but which is relicensed to us according to the supplier terms and conditions. So we need a clear statement on this. We have prepared a document to share with FOSSBazaar providing the legal text + a rational for each clause and our lawyers are oK to share this document. We are ready of course to explain things at length. Michel “Free and/or Open Source Software” or “FOSS” means (i) software provided to Licensor royalty-free in source code form, under a license including, but not limited to, one approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI http://www.opensource.org/) or (ii) proprietary software provided to Licensor royalty-free in binary code form, under an end user license agreement that is accepted without a signature, or (iii) shareware provided to Licensor free of initial charge, such as on a trial basis, but where a fee may become due once the user decides to use the software beyond the trial period, or (iv) public domain software Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France De : spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] De la part de Philip Odence Envoyé : jeudi 9 février 2012 13:40 À : spdx@... Objet : Today's SPDX General Meeting Sorry for the late reminder. Meeting Time: Feb 9, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 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 http://www.spdx.org/wiki/20120126-spdx-general-meeting-minutes Technical Team Report - Kate Legal Team Report - Jilayne Business Team Report - Kim Cross Functional Issues – Phil toggle quoted message Show quoted text Website update Webmaster help
More All Messages By This Member
Today's SPDX General Meeting Philip Odence #516 Sorry for the late reminder. Meeting Time: Feb 9, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 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 http://www.spdx.org/wiki/20120126-spdx-general-meeting-minutes Technical Team Report - Kate Legal Team Report - Jilayne Business Team Report - Kim Cross Functional Issues – Phil toggle quoted message Show quoted text Website update Webmaster help
More All Messages By This Member

1161 - 1180 of 1695

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms