I was thinking of it as an example of how it is a copyleft license.

I'll rethink the phrasing.

Frankly, I appreciate nitpicky grammarians.

Wayne

On 10/16/2013 03:42 PM, Phil Haack wrote:
>
> In licenses/eclipse.txt:
>
> > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ layout: license
> >  title: Eclipse Public License v1.0
> >  permalink: /licenses/eclipse/
> >
> > -description: Used by the Eclipse foundation for its software, this license includes reciprocal requirements in some cases.
> > +description: The Eclipse Public License (EPL 1.0) is maintained by the Eclipse Foundation. This license is a commercially friendly copyleft (e.g. reciprocal) license. Examples of non-Eclipse use of the EPL include OpenDaylight, Symbian (legacy), Clojure, Mondrian, and JUnit. Commercially friendly aspects include ability to commercially license binaries, a modern royalty-free patent license, and allows software which links to EPL code to use other licenses, including commercial ones.
>
> Thanks for the submission. Not to be a nitpicky grammarian, but 
> shouldn't that be |i.e.| rather than |e.g.|. I feel like "reciprocal" 
> is another way of describing "copyleft", but is not in itself an 
> /example of/ a copyleft license. :smile:
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub 
> <https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/pull/98/files#r7013423>.
>

-- 
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation 
<http://www.eclipse.org>
Learn about Eclipse Projects <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>
EclipseCon Europe 2013 <http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2013>