> > " You are missing the point that the creation of a MapServer > Foundation in no way required the contribution of any code > from Autodesk." >
Maybe the two actions together are the bane here. What if the MapServer Foundation was established independent of the gracious Autodesk contribution? The naming / optics of the Autodesk contribution didn't help, either. > Yes, this is true. Now I understand the sense of the > "precondition" in your comment. I would say that if we > weren't allowed to contribute our code, then we'd have gone > it alone, so you are correct. > > Some people are complaining that they woke up and Autodesk > was involved in the MapServer community, and some don't like > it. (Some do, BTW.) > > But the only other scenario is that the same people would > have woken up Monday and found that there was a now a > competitor. Because no matter what we were going to put that > code into open source and work hard to make it successful. If > the assumption is that we would be unable to create a > community, the assumption is faulty - many other companies - > some larger than us - have done so, and the people who did it > for them are available to us as well. We had a non-zero > probability of success taking that approach. > > But instead we're trying to embrace the one that's there who > has done such good work, to sing its praises, and spend our > money and brand equity to help it do so. We think a united > approach is better than a go-it-alone approach. > Exactly. > We expected some of this reaction - think it's mostly FUD > owing to not really knowing us- and do indeed have a lot to > learn about open source. But we're willing to actually take > the leap, try it out, and learn from the community. That's > more than you can say for many other companies. >
