My apologies if I took you out of context Allen, my posts have been a bit 'colourful' on the topic, but I do share your point of view.
Foundation = good Each group contributing and moving the projects forward for everyone's advantage = good Same name, giving the MapServer branding to Autodesk, leading to confusion and (in my opinion) the sense either that Autodesk somehow open sourced MapServer = bad Cheers, Ken Lord Vancouver BC On 12/21/05, Allan Doyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 21, 2005, at 17:23, Ken Lord wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > I hope you enjoy our rainy westcoast christmas ... first day of winter > > and its 13deg C. Feel free to drop in on us if you are still around in > > January. > > > > I think I need to clarify again, I really like the idea of the > > mapserver foundation, I can see the benefits of it, and that its time > > has come. > > > > This is however entirely different from blurring the line between > > MapServer and MapGuide for Autodesk's gain. > > > > As Allan put forth, to prove that this isn't just another in the very > > long list of products taken over by Autodesk to eliminate THEIR > > competition, either they must drop the MapServer name, or everything > > coming into the foundation must take the Smurf, errr I mean MapServer > > name regardless of what its purpose is. > > If I put that forth, then I've been misunderstood. I don't impute bad > motives on anyone's part in the naming thing. I think it's good > motives gone awry. Autodesk wants to do something good. I think > that's excellent. I also think Dave wants to do something good. Also > excellent. I just disagree with him on the naming issue. > > Allan > > > > > Keeping the same name for the two products is already causing > > confusion with clients, and it will not eliminate competiton between > > the products, it will just hide it at the expense of one side. No > > competition may mean stagnation. > > > > Cheers, > > Ken Lord > > Vancouver BC > > > > On 12/21/05, Dave McIlhagga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Ken, > >> > >> I hope everything is well in Vancouver these days .. I'll be there > >> myself in about 24 hours for Christmas. > >> > >> > >> I felt compelled to write back about this issue -- because I still > >> feel > >> very strongly that there are many very good reasons for having a > >> shared > >> 'MapServer' name with this new web mapping technology. > >> > >> First of all -- there is a perception that this is simply 'Autodesk > >> technology' but it's important to remember that as soon as the > >> technology is in an arm's length body, under LGPL and with copyright > >> assigned, it becomes as much yours, mine, Autodesk's or anyone elses > >> technology. In fact, even less aligned with any one company than > >> MapServer is today! > >> > >> Autodesk then becomes a participant & contributor to open source > >> as much > >> as our company, private consultants or any other contributing > >> organization is today around MapServer. The Foundation becomes > >> important > >> in this context to ensure fairness, and balance in how technology > >> continues to be developed for the sake of all stakeholders. > >> > >> And I believe this is just the beginning -- there are sure to be many > >> other organizations discovering that open source web mapping is the > >> platform of choice for the future. We're all going to be working to > >> bring them into the fold. > >> > >> > >> The question you have to really ask is, do we want to grow the > >> MapServer > >> community to be inclusive of a major new participant, and > >> hopefully many > >> more in the future? This is a great way to send a message that > >> MapServer > >> is truly open to everyone. > >> > >> > >> As many have pointed out, MapServer has built up a good reputation > >> over > >> the years -- but the majority of this good reputation has been within > >> the converted .. I can tell you as someone who does a lot of outreach > >> work to the outside world that everyone knows about Google Maps, some > >> folks know about ESRI and MapInfo, and only the most knowledgeable > >> about > >> MapServer. We still have a lot of work to do to reach those people > >> outside of our immediate world -- work I do every day, so working > >> together on a common message makes a lot more sense to me than > >> working > >> apart. > >> > >> > >> well -- that's my pitch. I hope everyone has wonderful holidays > >> and I'd > >> like to wish you a Happy New year. > >> > >> Dave > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Ken Lord wrote: > >>> ... And please do check out the comments. > >>> > >>> So far I seem to be the most adamently against Autodesk taking the > >>> MapServer name ... and I think I give some good reasons. > >>> > >>> To restate what I said in my poll comment, I have already seen a few > >>> potential clients confused over the MapServer / Autodesk issue that > >>> could easily work to Autodesk's favour ... and I don't actually > >>> spend > >>> much time building mapserver websites, I'm sure the hard core > >>> developers have seen more of this than me. > >>> > >>> I also don't appreciate the misleading messages I've seen in the > >>> media > >>> regarding Autodesk open sourcing MapServer as if it were their's to > >>> open source. My less open source aware friends have been giving > >>> Autodesk a lot of undeserved credit because of this lately. > >>> > >>> This may not be directly Autodesk's fault (unless they have let the > >>> media go uncorrected with their misleading articles), but I can > >>> add to > >>> this that a coworker attended the recent Autodesk conference in > >>> Orlando where the big announcement was made and he came back with > >>> some > >>> very different ideas on what the origins of MapServer actually was. > >>> > >>> Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Autodesk, I spend most of my > >>> working > >>> hours using Autodesk products, and without these products I'm not > >>> sure > >>> what I would have been doing in the last 5 years. > >>> > >>> But they need to be kept under control. Want another example on a > >>> different topic? > >>> > >>> ... At that same conference, my coworker was shocked to find that > >>> sensitive data from one of our clients was being used as lesson > >>> material in a short-course, without our permission, without even > >>> removing his name or our company's logo from the map. This was data > >>> sent in confidence to Autodesk to help us overcome an issue with > >>> using > >>> the software. The sad thing is that the solution they demonstrated > >>> in the course never was sent to us to fix our problem. Hopefully no > >>> one else recognized the data, it was for a very important client > >>> to us > >>> whom we do not want to loose. > >>> > >>> Don't let the Gorilla step on us ... It's welcome in the zoo, but > >>> not > >>> in the same cage. > >>> > >>> Happy Holidays, > >>> Ken Lord > >>> Vancouver BC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 12/21/05, Tyler Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> At Gary's request, I've posted another poll to the MapServer > >>>> website to help capture how the community feels about the naming > >>>> of Autodesk's web mapping product. > >>>> > >>>> Please take the time to login and answer this poll: > >>>> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/polls/autodesk_name/ > >>>> > >>>> Tyler > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > Allan Doyle > +1.781.433.2695 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
