Tyler, See discussion mixed in.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tyler Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29 November 2005 16:40 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation - Open Letter > John, > The takeover scenario is a moot point, especially in light of the > establishment of the foundation. That is the whole purpose > of having an > arms-length, community-run organisation to manage and protect things. Whether or not a reverse takeover has occurred will out by the effluxion of time. However, there is no doubting the factual nature of my observation that AutoDesk has garnered the community brand name for nix. Ed has put this point much more eloquently than I. > Finding a way for diverse companies, non-profits, individuals > and government > has been what MapServer is all about. That is why MapServer > is what it is > today. That is what this announcement is all about too. > Rather than go it > alone, we believe that the result can be greater than the sum > of its parts. It is my contention that the actions announced today have just changed that model completely. > We sought to find common ground and even common names so that > we can be seen > as cooperating rather than competing, sharing rather than > trying to take > advantage. AutoDesk didn't push over the developers and grab > the name from > them, the use of the name was a mutual idea and discussed. > To make it out > that AutoDesk "took" something is not fair nor accurate. Well someone just gave it away then. Let's wait and see what happens when another corporate uses MapServer in its product name. > Commercial groups have been building on MapServer for years, > they've provided > some of the excellent support and development we've enjoyed. Our > relationship with AutoDesk need not be any different - > another developer and > supporter, at the table with the rest of us. This isn't > about MapServer vs. > AutoDesk - it's about finding a way to work with a new group > in the open > source web mapping community. I believe that we have common > goals and that > AutoDesk is not interested in stacking the deck or doing a > power-play on the > rest of us - it wouldn't fit within our community and would > be counter to a > foundation. The commercial model does not have altruism in its schema. Even if a corporate professes it, the stock analysts won't allow it. Why would AutoDesk be any different than M$? > You can turn them away to do their own thing or work together > for a common > goal. Seems to me like it is all over bar the shouting. Another bloodless coup. Now everyone is working together for the common good of AutoDesk. > Tyler > The fact that: It has been presented as a fait accompli; Media releases have been made; It was done in secret; The community was not consulted; and That the community brand name was given away for nix; Indicates to me that something is crook in Tallarook. Sorry but at the moment it is all pointing in that direction. I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong in the long haul. Best regards John C
