Eclipse Foundation Members Meeting July 2017

Copyright © 2017 Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Made available under the Eclipse Public License 1.0 1 Agenda • Welcome - Paul White (Eclipse Foundation) • Executive Director’s Update - Mike Milinkovich (Eclipse Foundation) • Eclipse Public License v2.0 Overview and Discussion - Mike Milinkovich (Eclipse Foundation) • Projects Update - Wayne Beaton (Eclipse Foundation) • Eclipse Foundation Brand Survey - Ian Skerrett (Eclipse Foundation) • Conferences & Activities - Paul White (Eclipse Foundation) • Q&A

Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation [email protected]

Polarsys IOT

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Fcst

Revenue 4.5 4.3 4.9 5.4 6.3 5.0

Expenses 4.4 4.7 4.9 5.6 6.8 5.5

Net Income 0.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.2) (0.5) (0.5)

Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation [email protected]

• Based on the Common Public License v1.0 – IBM was the author/steward – ~2001 • Eclipse Public License v1.0 – OSI approved ~November 2003 – Part of the discussions that led to the creation of the Eclipse Foundation in January 2004 – Only changes from CPL: • Scope of patent termination • Eclipse Foundation is the license steward

Copyright © 2017 Eclipse Foundation, Inc. 11 Goals for EPLv2 • Broadened to include all “content”, not just “code and documentation” • Files vs “module” • Choice of law – Necessitates defining derivative work • Modernization – Use in scripting languages (source = executable) • Necessitates defining source and executable code – Source code availability – Subclassing now explicitly excluded (community norm) – Notices • GPL compatibility – Modeled after approach used in MPL 2.0 • Miscellaneous cleanup

• Copyright license • Patent license • Patent termination • Commercial Distribution

• Eclipse Foundation IP Advisory Committee – Mike Milinkovich - Exec. Director, Eclipse Foundation – Jeffrey Neuburger - Proskauer, Eclipse Foundation Counsel – Terry Carroll, IBM Counsel – Richard Fontana, Red Hat Counsel – Max Andersen, Red Hat, Director - Eclipse Foundation – Ed Merks, Director - Eclipse Foundation – Donald Smith - Oracle, Director - Eclipse Foundation • Public discussions on epl-discuss and conference calls – Til Jaeger, Jim Wright (Oracle), Jeff Thompson (IBM), Andrew Katz, Luis Villa, etc.

• EPLv1 referred to “code and documentation” • EPLv2 broadened to refer to “content” – Many projects include icons, gifs, documents so it makes sense to ensure that there is no ambiguity that they are covered

• “File” has clearly won as the term of art – Clearer, widely understood – Ties to the DCO, which the Eclipse Foundation has started using • A one word change in the definition of Contribution

Copyright © 2017 Eclipse Foundation, Inc. 16 Choice of Law • Removed references to New York State • Included a definition for “Modified Works” – Used to determine the scope of the copyleft – Definition explicitly excludes subclassing • Included a definition for “Derivative Works” – Used to provide the copyright license grants – Basically a copy of the US statute definition • Approach used by ALv2

• Added definitions of Source Code • Simply made the scope of the copyleft to be based entirely on making source code available

• Removed the requirement that the Source Code for a Program must be made available by the Contributor (a.k.a. the distributor) – Happy to have people point to the origin, rather than copying and hosting

• Added “..., patent, trademark, attribution notices, disclaimers of warranty, or limitations of liability…” to the list of notices which cannot be removed or altered • Removed “Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution, if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution.” – We will make this a matter of community policy, rather than a license obligation

Motivation: • Eclipse Foundation has projects which are dual-licensed EPLv1+BSD to allow for use with GPL-licensed projects • This loses the copyleft, as consumers will often elect to select the permissive license • Would like to allow for GPL compatibility while maintaining EPL copyleft.

• Use the “Secondary Licenses” approach of the MPL 2.0 – EPLv2 is not compatible by default. Notice has to be added to make a Program GPL compatible – The initial Contributor decides if the Program can be made available under GPL

• Removed – “No party to this Agreement will bring a legal action under this Agreement more than one year after the cause of action arose. “ – “Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation.” • Added – “AND TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW” to the warranty and limitation of liability sections • Done to address concerns in Europe that the previous wording would be unenforceable.

• Board refers the draft to OSI and FSF for certification. – This process may result in revisions • Final version will be reviewed by the IP Advisory Committee before referral to Board. • Unanimous vote of the Board required for final approval – Timeline: Final approval on August 16, 2017

Copyright © 2017 Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Made available under the Eclipse Public License 1.0 25 26 Copyright © 2017 Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Made available under the Eclipse Public License 1.0 Update the Guide to the Legal Documentation

Git Repository

git.eclipse.org/project.git ├── LICENSE ├── NOTICE MyFile.jar └── ... ├── META-INF | ├── NOTICE │ └── LICENSE └── ...

Distribution

● Codes for specifying licenses ○ e.g. EPL-1.0, Apache-2.0 ● Syntax for describing how licenses are combined ○ (EPL-1.0 OR Apache-2.0) ○ (EPL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0) ● Metadata file format or describing content licensing ○ Licenses involved, copyright statements, contributors, ... ● Tools for working with license data

29 File Headers and SPDX

/****************************************************************** * Copyright (c) 2017 ACME Loo. * All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying materials * are made available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License * v1.0 which accompanies this distribution, and is available at * http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html * * SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-1.0 Machine readable unambiguous expressions * * Contributors: * Buster Bunny - initial API and implementation ******************************************************************/

30 Monitor this channel. Let’s drive these Retweet numbers up! everything. Test the Java 9 Support. Do it now. Other Project Announcements

New Project Proposals ● Technology: Eclipse BaSys, Eclipse Picasso, Eclipse BIG IoT ● IoT: Eclipse Duttile ● Tools: Eclipse aCute

Recent July Releases ● Eclipse Papyrus for Real Time (Papyrus-RT) 1.0.0 ● Eclipse MicroProfile Config 1.0 and Eclipse MicroProfile 1.1 ● Eclipse Lyo 2.2.0 ● Eclipse Linux Tools 6.1.0 ● Eclipse APP4MC 0.8.1

Graduations ● Eclipse Papyrus for Real Time (Papyrus-RT) Brand Perception Survey Results Ian Skerrett Vice President of Marketing

● The objective of this survey is to assess ‘Eclipse’ brand perception with the community ● Survey duration: March 20, 2017 to April 29, 2017. ● 1129 individuals participated in the survey. ● The survey was promoted on social media, on the company websites and through partners, most notably BSI (Business Systems Integration AG) and Yolande Poirier at Oracle. ● The survey was featured at three events in 2017: ○ Devoxx US ○ JavaLand ○ Devoxx France ● Special thanks to Matthias Zimmerman for spearheading this project!

● Three audiences are reported in the survey: ○ Java Developers, 175 Respondents: data collected at JavaLand and using the Java Twitter ID ; ○ Eclipse Community, 570 Respondents: data collected on social media, at Devoxx US, on the company website, and in the Eclipse Newsletter; ○ Aggregate Pool, 1129 Respondents: combining the two audiences (Eclipse + Java), additional data was collected through JAXenter, Devoxx France, YouTube, LinkedIn on the Java Twitter account and in the Devoxx Newsletter. ● A similar survey that tested the ‘Eclipse’ brand perception was conducted in 2010. ● Results are available below: ○ Open Source Developer Survey 2010

What best describes your role?

How many years have you been using technology from the Eclipse community?

”22% of the Java Community does % not participate in Open Source.”

“The Java Community is significantly less interested % in project association to an Open Source Foundation.”

“The Apache Foundation is % perceived as most importance across all communities.”

“The results on the right demonstrate respondent indifference.“

Benefits of Open Source Foundations

% Which statement best reflects your perception of Eclipse? (Select one)

Which statement best reflects your perception of Eclipse? (Select one)

“The Java Community widely perceives Eclipse as a Java IDE; the Eclipse Community understand the community definition.”

% Do our members have a better understanding of what “Eclipse” is?

% How does an employee’s role impact brand recognition?

C-Levels and Managers have a better understanding of what “Eclipse” is, and recognize that it’s a community. Developers predominantly perceive Eclipse to mean “an IDE for different languages”.

Brand Recognition vs. Location

% Does location have an impact on brand recognition?

Eclipse Foundation

@EclipseFdn

Save next year’s date for Toulouse! June 13-14, 2017

www.eclipsesummit.in

July 29

Infosys B12, Electronic City, Bengaluru

events.eclipse.org Upcoming Events

www.eclipsecon.org/europe2017

October 24-26

Ludwigsburg, Germany

events.eclipse.org Received record number of submissions (Thank you!!!)

A full week of activities - Eight ECE tracks - IoT Theme Day + IoT Hack Day and IoT Playground - Project Quality Day - Monday Unconference

Many BoFs and Networking Events

Annual Members Meeting to be held Tuesday morning at 10:30 CET Thank you!

Questions?