Gary, To answer your question: I agree anyone involved in the foundation should contribute in someway, but that should be as simply as being a user or promoting the foundation/projects, as David Bitner and others pointed out in posts. I agree with David's post and would like to see involvement from all different types of groups, even if some don't have a lot to contribute. Many of us have spent a lot of time promoting MapServer (either by presentations or organizing conferences or other ways) to help grow the user base and that should count for something. That has been the way MapServer has
Personally I wouldn't object to a small (reasonable) membership fee or contributing money towards a project enhancement. I understand the foundation is going to need operating money. But I also hope the foundation doesn't expect small companies/individual users/universities to be able to contribute the same as big companies/organizations can afford to contribute. Brian Fischer Houston Engineering, Inc. Maple Grove, MN (763) 493-4522 -----Original Message----- From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Lang Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the Foundation Brian, Good points. I guess it depends on the context of usage. For example in this case I said: " And to be clear, I wouldn't care which code base they wanted to use." This would seem to be an effective disambiguation of the code bases. It wouldn't solve confusion around the foundation and code base names being similar, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for Apache, OpenOffice, Eclipse, et al. I am still interested in the answer to the question. I think anyone who joins the foundation should contribute something. A new project, new code mods, money, etc. Thoughts? Gary -----Original Message----- From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fischer, Brian Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the Foundation This partial line "agree to either support or use MapServer in their products" in your post is what I feel is confusing when talking and reading about all of this. What does this mean? The terminology is just not logical. Does it mean you are using the original MapServer code? Does it mean you are using the Autodesk open source code (MapServer Enterprise)? Does it mean you are using the guidelines of the foundation (MapServer Foundation)? This is simply confusing to me (I can't imagine how a new user is going to interpret it) and I have been following the "original MapServer" mailing list for over 5 years. To me I would interpret this as meaning a person/organization is using the "original MapServer" code in their product, but I think you intend it to me something different. Is this the feeling others have? Brian Fischer Houston Engineering, Inc. Maple Grove, MN (763) 493-4522 -----Original Message----- From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Lang Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the Foundation Hi Gary, Gary from Autodesk here. I am doing this as we speak. In fact I started making my first calls about 2 weeks ago. I just got a call from one 2 minutes ago from someone at one those companies and they are interested in discussing what it would mean to join. Involving other companies is actually something I have been clear I wanted to do from the outset. Since I'm good acquaintances with my peers at most of those companies and had hinted at our open source intentions before with some of them, I am hopeful they will join us in this adventure based on initial interest. Now, let me ask people here something, in my mind, if someone wants to join the foundation, they should contribute something to the foundation or agree to either support or use MapServer in their products, though. What do you think? And to be clear, I wouldn't care which code base they wanted to use. I will address your comments about foundation control in another email. Suffice it to say that we'd be incredibly stupid to help establish a foundation in which Autodesk or any other corporate entity has "control" - who would want to contribute their work if we did that? We wouldn't. Gary -----Original Message----- From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Watry Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the Foundation Being as this is a non-profit open source Foundation, I hope that we will ask the other commercial Internet map software companies to join the Foundation in the same manner as AutoDesk. This should include ESRI, Integraph, Microstation, MapInfo, DeLorme, etc etc Anyone who has a vested interest in Internet Mapping should be asked to contribute and participate. If they opt not to - fine - but then they are on record for choosing not to play But then the contributors could insure their other products were compatible with MapServer(OS) and that it was compatible with their products. The two fold benefit to this is 1. the foundation will not be concieved as a partner to Autodesk 2. Autodesk or no other Commercial company will control the Foundation ______________________________________________________________ Gary L. Watry GIS Coordinator Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies FSU / COAPS Johnson Building, RM 215 2035 East Paul Dirac Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2840 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lester Caine Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] current OS license Charlton Purvis wrote: > Hi, folks: > > Although there continues to be an open source spirit surrounding the code > amid the launch of a MS Foundation, I'd like to ask for clarification re. > the license of the MS code as it stands now. > > If for whatever reason a company like Autodesk (or I guess it would have to > be the Foundation) wanted to slap some kind of non-open source license on > the code, is it true that the current code we call MapServer in its current > state will always remain covered under the license below? Basically I'm > trying to make sure that a shop can't somehow repossess something that was > originally OS thus preventing folks from using it like it's being used now. Borland tried it with Interbase, but Firebird is now freely available and there is not a lot Borland can now do about it ;) I am sure Autocad have a 'hidden agenda' but as long as there are free versions of what ever is needed to provide a working system then there will not be a problem. Anything commercial will have to be worth the money to make any sales :) p.s. I am not seeing my posts to the list so if you get this Charlton and it's not on the list please can you forward it :( -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc.
