[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] CodeEnvy continues to use deceptivewording that's harmful to Eclipse

> I guess one question, is that really the Foundationâs 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 âEclipseâ 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 donât understand that this isnât saying that Che is the next version of what they understand to be Eclipse. In trademark terms, âEclipseâ and âEclipse IDEâ are established trademarks of the traditional Eclipse product. Even if that wasnât an explicit overt decision, itâs a fact. In retrospect, perhaps the foundation and the product should not have used the same trademark, but we canât 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 âEclipse IDEâ 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. Thatâs why I was reading the press release, before I got sidetracked by this.

 

- Konstantin

 

 

 

From: Doug Schaefer
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 10:47 AM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] CodeEnvy continues to use deceptivewording that's harmful to Eclipse

 

I guess one question, is that really the Foundationâs role? Is it not up to us, the community, to make sure the messaging is clear?

 

Though Iâm not as worried about that at the moment. I gave a short talk to a local Ottawa IoT meetup and used the term âEclipseâ and they knew exactly what I was talking about, using Eclipse to program their Arduinos. And they rather liked the idea :).

 

Aside from that, the language server protocol is a great initiative and something our tooling really needs. Donât forget Red Hat is also a major player here and I think weâll all benefit from it.

 

Doug.

 

From: <cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Konstantin Komissarchik <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 12:11 PM
To: "cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] CodeEnvy continues to use deceptive wording that's harmful to Eclipse

 

I was just reading the latest Microsoft/RedHat/Codenvy press release and came across the problematic wording that weâve seen before.

 

Microsoft Visual Studio Code and Eclipse Che, the next-generation Eclipse IDE, have added support for the protocol.

 

https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-codenvy-and-microsoft-collaborate-language-server-protocol

 

I think itâs great that Eclipse Foundation is getting more technologically diverse, but I find it very concerning that Eclipse Foundation is allowing Codenvy/Che to continue to use wording like this. Current Eclipse users will read this statement as an official statement of the roadmap for the desktop Eclipse IDE or whatever the hell we are supposed to call it now that Eclipse IDE doesnât mean anything, apparently.

 

I understand why Codenvy would use wording like this as it helps them to promote Che. What I donât understand is why Eclipse Foundation, through inaction, is allowing this to continue.

 

Thanks,

 

- Konstantin