spdx@lists.spdx.org | Recommend Changing SPDX License Identifier for Eclipse PublicLicense 1.0 to "Eclipse-1.0"

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Date Date 1 - 7 of 7

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
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
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
Richard Fontana #536 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 toggle quoted message Show quoted text 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
More All Messages By This Member
Mike Milinkovich #537 I had no idea we were such troublemakers! toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----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
More All Messages By This Member
Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...> #538 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 toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----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
More
Mike Milinkovich #539 Oh, so _you're_ the guys to blame for people calling the license "Eclipse"! That explains everything. (just kidding) toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) Sent: March-02-12 1:14 PM To: Jilayne Lovejoy; 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" 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 _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
More All Messages By This Member

1 - 7 of 7

1

Previous Topic Next Topic

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms