> I guess one question, is that really the Foundation’s role?
Yes, it is. We entrust the foundation to safeguard various Eclipse trademarks
and this looks like a clear case of misuse.
> Is it not up to us, the community, to make sure the messaging is clear?
Even if others put out clarifying and contradicting statements, the confusion
will remain and only get worse as more people are exposed to this statement.
> I gave a short talk to a local Ottawa IoT meetup and used the term “Eclipse”
> and they knew exactly what I was talking about
Of course they did, which is exactly why claims that Che is the next generation
Eclipse IDE is so damaging as most don’t understand that this isn’t saying that
Che is the next version of what they understand to be Eclipse. In trademark
terms, “Eclipse” and “Eclipse IDE” are established trademarks of the
traditional Eclipse product. Even if that wasn’t an explicit overt decision,
it’s a fact. In retrospect, perhaps the foundation and the product should not
have used the same trademark, but we can’t fix the history. Trying to invent a
new trademark for the traditional Eclipse IDE or the current quasi state where
we are supposed to pretend that “Eclipse IDE” means any number of things to the
user base is deeply damaging and expensive to everyone involved. Now is the
time to stop it, before the damage spreads further.
> Aside from that, the language server protocol is a great initiative and
> something our tooling really needs.
I agree with that. That’s why I was reading the press release, before I got
sidetracked by this.
- Konstantin
From: Doug Schaefer
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
