epiphany about the idea of the Foundation
Gary Lang
gary.lang at AUTODESK.COM
Tue Nov 29 18:35:02 EST 2005
I would refer people back to Steve's short comment yesterday. One might
also view that MapServer got the Autodesk brand name associated with it
yesterday. To me, it seems like both parties benefited. This is usually
a sign of a good deal.
I'm not disagreeing with the entire community, which is not monolithic,
but simply expressing my opinion that phrases like "walking away with
the brand" when talking about - in addition to naming a code base - a
foundation to be mostly run by _MapServer_ community members and leaders
like the initial creator of _MapServer_, called "_MapServer_ Foundation"
seems a bit overstated to me.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Fawcett, David [mailto:David.Fawcett at state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:14 PM
To: Gary Lang; MAPSERVER-USERS at lists.umn.edu
Subject: RE: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
Some of us woke up on Monday and found that the MapServer name and brand
had been given to an Autodesk product. And that the true MapServer
product has been given a modifier of 'Cheetah'.
I am not concerned that Autodesk is joining the community, I just think
that giving MapGuide the brand of MapServer is confusing and greatly
devalues the brand that the MapServer product and community has greatly
earned.
As new companies join the foundation, will we get MapServerIMS,
MapServerIMS Enterprise, MapServerGeomedia, MapServerMS,
MapServerMapXtreme, MapServerStreetAtlas? What is left of the MapServer
brand then?
In your alternative scenario, you say that we would have woken up to a
competitor. At least that competitor wouldn't have walked away with the
brand.
I also don't think that labeling feedback from the MapServer Community
as 'mostly FUD' really demonstrates your willingness to 'learn from the
community'.
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Gary Lang
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:42 PM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
<snip>
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.
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.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed McNierney [mailto:ed at topozone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:26 PM
To: Gary Lang; MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: RE: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
Gary -
You are missing the point that the creation of a MapServer Foundation in
no way required the contribution of any code from Autodesk.
All of this is a very reasonable path for Autodesk, and it gained
Autodesk the right to use a respected open-source brand name and
associate its MapGuide product with that respected brand. That's a
great thing for Autodesk to do - why else would Autodesk need to involve
anyone from the MapServer community at all? Autodesk is perfectly
capable of creating a "MapGuide Foundation" all by itself.
But I do not think it was a wise thing for a small subset of the
MapServer community to decide to do.
- Ed
Ed McNierney
President and Chief Mapmaker
TopoZone.com / Maps a la carte, Inc.
73 Princeton Street, Suite 305
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
ed at topozone.com
(978) 251-4242
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Lang [mailto:gary.lang at autodesk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:11 PM
To: Ed McNierney; MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: RE: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
" Having been a CTO and VP of Marketing for more than one public
software company, I respectfully disagree. You are now, after all,
brainstorming and asking questions on a public mailing list without
benefit of an NDA."
Everything we're talking about is public knowledge now, and the code has
been contributed to the foundation. It's a different situation.
" Not every action taken by a public company is a material event that
impacts its stock price"
Yes but you never know which one will, and your shareholders would
consider it careless to leave the impressions of where you are going
when brainstorming to chance. Putting a major product that we're making
an ongoing investment was considered a major event in our lawyer's
minds. This then leads to all kinds of questions - "what else are you
going to make available for free?" was one that came up, and there were
many more that we had to have clear answers for yesterday.
Neither of us is a lawyer, I'll bet.
Anyone in my shoes needs to have answers available and we had none until
we figured out what we were going to do. Maybe we're too careful but
that was our approach.
" If Autodesk is a voting member of the Foundation, will you again
expect another NDA every time you have a discussion that might affect
the "MapServer Enterprise" product?"
In a word, no. It's in the community's hands now, not ours.
" The only reason you needed to disclose any Autodesk code was because
the inclusion of that code in the MapServer Foundation was a
precondition of your support. "
Not true, it has to be downloadable by everybody within a legal
framework that protects it but removes it from our control. Without
these two things in place, who would be interested in it?
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed McNierney [mailto:ed at topozone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:57 PM
To: Gary Lang; MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: RE: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
Gary -
Having been a CTO and VP of Marketing for more than one public software
company, I respectfully disagree. You are now, after all, brainstorming
and asking questions on a public mailing list without benefit of an NDA.
Not every action taken by a public company is a material event that
impacts its stock price, and public companies have all kinds of people
saying all kinds of things all over the place without NDAs. If Autodesk
is a voting member of the Foundation, will you again expect another NDA
every time you have a discussion that might affect the "MapServer
Enterprise" product?
The only reason you needed to disclose any Autodesk code was because the
inclusion of that code in the MapServer Foundation was a precondition of
your support. It was certainly possible for Autodesk to support a
MapServer Foundation and THEN - after the Foundation was constituted -
propose the contribution of that code to the Foundation. The Foundation
management could have authorized a technical subcommittee to sign an NDA
with Autodesk in order to evaluate that proposed contribution.
You're confusing Autodesk's MapGuide product with the MapServer
Foundation, and that's the primary source of the problem. The MapServer
community needs a foundation dedicated to the stewardship of MapServer,
and Autodesk is looking for a product and marketing strategy for its
MapGuide product. Those are both fine goals, but they're completely
different goals. I think Autodesk's behavior has been perfectly
reasonable for a commercial software company trying to design a path
forward for one of its products. It is the endorsement and acquiescence
to that strategy by a subset of the MapServer community - in the absence
of an effort to investigate alternatives - that I object to.
- Ed
Ed McNierney
President and Chief Mapmaker
TopoZone.com / Maps a la carte, Inc.
73 Princeton Street, Suite 305
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
ed at topozone.com
(978) 251-4242
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Lang [mailto:gary.lang at autodesk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:34 PM
To: Ed McNierney; MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: RE: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
Sure. It's pretty straightforward.
We are a public company. We make money from MapGuide. We weren't sure
what we were going to do and had questions to answer:
1) open source or not
2) can we work with the MS community or not and to see if our code was
interesting enough to it to work with them on it
3)
A public company cannot brainstorm or ask questions like this on a
public mailing list. We also could not just show our code without an
NDA. It's simply not legally allowed. So our choice was:
1) go it alone, and effectively compete with MS from day one of our
announcements which would then have said "use MapGuide, not MapServer",
don't consult with anyone, etc. That wasn't appealing after we met with
Frank, Daniel, Paul, Dave and I talked to Steve.
2) try to explore, through the only means of exploration available to
us, what we could do by working with the community. The means available
to us were NDAs to disclose the code and brainstorm on the idea of
working together.
The Apache guys had a similar situation when approach by IBM. It worked
out well for Apache and IBM, and our goal is for this to work out well
for the current MapServer and Autodesk as well.
This wasn't about control. It is more a lack of control - we were not
legally allowed to approach the exploration in any other way. Now that
there is a legal foundation and it has the code and the code's out
there, we can talk. It's that simple.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed McNierney [mailto:ed at topozone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:21 PM
To: Gary Lang; MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: RE: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
Gary -
"Involving other companies is actually something I have been clear I
wanted to do from the outset" "we'd be incredibly stupid to help
establish a foundation in which Autodesk or any other corporate entity
has "control""
Can you explain, then, why Autodesk insisted that everyone participating
in this process sign non-disclosure agreements with Autodesk? That
process seems designed to ensure that Autodesk had control, and
prevented the involvement of other companies.
- Ed
Ed McNierney
President and Chief Mapmaker
TopoZone.com / Maps a la carte, Inc.
73 Princeton Street, Suite 305
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
ed at topozone.com
(978) 251-4242
-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Gary Lang
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:45 PM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
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:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Gary Watry
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:30 AM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
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: watry at coaps.fsu.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Lester Caine
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:06 PM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
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.
More information about the mapserver-users
mailing list