Over 100 messages in less than 24 hours. WOW! I am a Mapserver user and not a contributor, other than my company has discussed donations to fund development of certain features we would like to see, so I am limited in what I can contribute to this discussion.
However, I think back to three months ago when my CIO came to me and asked me to investigate a way to embed GIS in our main product offering. I evaluated most, if not all, web mapping solutions available regardless of cost. Mapserver was my choice, and remains so today. Back then if I had come to the foundation web page and found Webserver Enterprise and Webserver Community Edition (or Cheetah or Raptor or Osprey or whatever), I would have naturally tried the Enterprise edition assuming it was much fuller featured and more powerful than the other. If that edition had not met my needs (and it would not have), I would not have downloaded the REAL Mapserver that very much does meet my needs. Instead, I would have gone on with my search for product. It would have been MY loss and my customer's loss. So, I implore you. Do not name these two products that have no relation to each other as they are presently named. It is misleading and detrimental to the goals of this community. And it is harmful to the emerging GIS world as well. One other point, Gary Lang of Autodesk stated that there could well be a commercial version of the OS Mapserver (whatever edition) and that the commercial edition would include support. For most companies, that would ensure that the free/open source editions a come-on to entice them to purchase the commercial version that included support. Do we really want this wonderful product (the original Mapserver) to be merely a sales tool for Autodesk. Disclaimer: I have absolutely no animosity towards Autodesk since I rarely deal with their product. Chip Taylor Prepared Response, Inc.
