Autodesk product naming poll

[Ken Lord]

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 <adoyle at eogeo.org> 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 <dmcilhagga at dmsolutions.ca> 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 <tylermitchell at shaw.ca> 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
> adoyle at eogeo.org
>