Poll: MapServer and Autodesk

[Ken Lord]

On a light note, I think we can agree on who should not be writting
the next Quebec referendum question.  8D


The naming debate still contains the contradiction I mentioned before.

It's been stated that it is Not OK for Tux to be a product within a
foundation named "MapServer" because Autodesk looses their name brand,
even though the product itself could maintain it's Autodesk name, be
that MapGuide, Tux or whatever.

But apparently it is wonderful if Tux is renamed as MapServer ...
despite it loosing the Autodesk name brand entirely.

Please someone resolve this contradiction for me, preferably without
using the words "MapServer has become an Autodesk name brand through
the promotion of an open source foundation".

Either way Autodesk will be promoting their product as they should of course.

... but we are being told that if the community gives Autodesk the
MapServer name brand, then UMN MapServer will be permitted to ride on
the coattails of Autodesk's shiney new well promoted MapServer name
brand.

It just doesn't feel right. Especially when you consider that an often
promoted selling point for MapServer is the fact that it is not
MapGuide.

So try it this way:


Give the foundation some obscure acronym name, or MapTools, or
whatever. I'm not stuck on the foundation name being MapServer. I may
be slanted, but not stuck on it.

Bring in UMN MapServer as "MapServer", and Autodesk Tux as "Tux" (or
some other Autodesk familial name).

... and watch them thrive together, without confusion over which
version of MapServer is capable of certain abilities, with no
confusion over the heritage of either project. Competition is not a
scary word, it is an innovative word, instead of pretending it isn't
happening, it will be in the open.

Autodesk will have the benefit of being associated with the respected
MapServer name by being a part of the foundation.

MapServer will have the benefit of being associated with a big
corporate name by being a part of the foundation.

The foundation can do its job of protecting and fostering the
development of both these projects and whatever other projects that
are contributed in the future.

Autodesk's promotion of their foundation product will reflect well on
the whole foundation thereby helping promote MapServer ... without
MapServer simply being dragged along on the coattails by using the
same name.

Autodesk can still promote that they are involved with MapServer and
contributing to its development for the mutual benefit of both
projects and the open source community in general. They can still run
with their new open source business model.

Everyone is respected, everyone sees some benefit, the
misappropriation of a respected open source name brand is averted, the
planets stay in their orbits, and the sun rises again tomorrow.

Happy Holidays,
Ken Lord
Vancouver BC