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


Mike Milinkovich
 

Oh, so _you're_ the guys to blame for people calling the license "Eclipse"!

That explains everything.

(just kidding)

-----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


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


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


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


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


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


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