MapServer and Foundation naming

[P Kishor]

Hi Dave,

Welcome.

David Mcllhagga wrote:
..
>
> Regarding the naming issue -- I was and continue to be the primary advocate for a common
> MapServer brand for both versions of the technology (regardless of the actual 'flavours'
> to be associated with each). I'd like to share with everyone why I continue to believe
> this is in the best interests of everyone involved, and in particular the original
> MapServer technology and user community.

It is still not clear what exactly will Autodesk's codebase contribute
to the MapServer codebase, if anything at all. Will it, won't it? Will
it forever be a separate but equal product? Why does it even need the
MapServer foundation?


>
> Yesterday, at the keynote presentation - Autodesk's chief operating officer announced to
> the 5000+ in attendance that the Autodesk MapServer Enterprise - the replacement for
> MapGuide - was being released as Open Source. The consequence? A whole world of people
> who may never have heard of MapServer before suddenly were exposed to this -- exposed to
> MapServer - not just to The Autodesk flavour, but also the tried and true that we all
> love and use. The alternative? An announcement of MapGuide being open source would leave
> no one in attendance or reading the press coverage ever hearing about MapServer.

but what good does it do to MapServer? If those 5000 are going to go
to the msfoundation website, see a cheetah and an enterprise, they are
going to choose the latter. If that doesn't work for them, they are
never going to come back, unless they are unlucky to be forced to use
the large, unwieldy product.


>
>
> Over the past three days I and others have given a number of press interviews -- and to
> be able to talk about 'MapServer' as a family of open source web mapping technologies is
> incredibly powerful.

how is it a family? Is there any relation between the two technologies
other than that a group of folks thought it would be a cool idea to
share the name. This is the part that escapes me.

If Autodesk is so confident of their product, how come they didn't
insist that we change our product's name to MapGuide Cheetah?


>
> My point is -- there is a huge big world out there who is just starting to learn about
> open source web mapping technologies - both within the geospatial industry and the
> broader IT world. Because of my commitment to MapServer and my goal of seeing both
> flavours of this technology being adopted as widely as possible -- I feel deeply
> committed to a shared brand for the power of the message we can all send to the outside
> world that so badly needs to hear it.

You say "both flavours of this technology" as if they are peas from
the same pod. But they are not, afaik. They have totally different
pedigree, drivers, motivations, developers, platforms, architecture.
For most of us, while the Autodesk technology sounds impressive
because it is buzzword-compliant, it is severely less than our
MapServer. MapServer runs on more platforms, supports more languages,
is scalable up and down the wazoo, and is fully enterprise worthy with
the addition of PostGIS.


>
> I am deeply personally committed to the success of MapServer and to getting the world to
> hear about our accomplishments. It is for this reason that I hope that we can proceed
> with welcoming Autodesk into our MapServer community as an equal stakeholder.

I know you are. I have known you personally for a long time, and I am
convinced of that. No one doubts anyone (well, maybe some do). But I
don't care about the motives here. I only care about the health of
that little program that can do a wonderful job that other behemoths
are unable to do. If that program benefits, great. Bring Autodesk on.

The only way to move forward is to welcome Autodesk, but ask them to
address what exactly they bring to MapServer, the program, when they
say they want to join the foundation. If their work will enhance
MapServer, the software, then it should not have any name other than
just goodwill and publicity for them. After all, they will benefit
from getting back the on-going work of countless MapServer developers.

If their codebase will not contribute anything to MapServer, the
software, they are still welcome to the foundation. But then, let them
 choose a different name. It can be another product of the MapServer
Foundation, much like the various projects of the Apache Foundation
are.