Poll: MapServer and Autodesk

[Ken Lord]

To quote Gary and Tyler's letter:

"Autodesk will not be willing to put their investment into a
foundation that hides their name brand under the name of another
web-based mapping project"

How does 'MapServer Enterprise' not contradict this requirement?

The only way I see it not being a contradiction is if MapServer was an
Autodesk name brand.

It also ignores the well known MapGuide name. If the name brand is so
important why is it so easy to drop MapGuide?,  why not MapGuide Tux
by the Maptools (or whatever) Foundation, alongside MapServer by the
Maptools Foundation,  allowing you to protect your name brand as your
statement demands, and allowing MapServer to keep it's history intact
... and eliminating the confusion we've already seen out in the wild,
while at the same time allowing the two to work together for a common
good.


... I say it again, in my small, unimportant, and perhaps overly loud voice ...

Foundation = good, - good for MapServer, good for Autodesk.
Competition creates innovation and prevents stagnation.

Giving Autodesk the MapServer name = bad.  It has already lead to
confusion and therefore indirect competition between the two products
anyways.

Cheers,
Ken Lord
Vancouver BC

On 12/22/05, Gary Lang <gary.lang at autodesk.com> wrote:
>
>
> Below is a note that Tyler Mitchell and I put together to help describe some
> of  the 'open letter' groups' thinking around the name issue.  There is also
> a new POLL related to it - please vote when you have a minute.  It will be
> very helpful to measuring peoples' opinions.
>
>
>
> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/polls/ms_autodesk
>
>
>
> At the end of this message is a poll for you to vote on.
>
>
>
> Those of us that signed the open letter may not have laid out exactly what
> it meant to us to have a shared name brand.  This note is an attempt lay out
> those reasons clearly, so we all understand why we thought it was important
> to share name brands.
>
>
>
> Each of us knew that:
>
>
> * MapServer has had a good history, significant market share and has good
> equity in its name.
>
>
> * Autodesk is a very successful company, with successful products and has
> significant amounts of brand equity
>
>
> * Autodesk were planning to release "Tux" as open source and continue to
> develop it through an open source community
>
>
>
> Autodesk had a choice to make: a) offer to work with MapServer to find
> common ground, to build synergies and not compete; or, b) set up their own
> open source geospatial software foundation as a home for their product,
> develop their own independent branding for their product and end up
> competing with MapServer.
>
>
>
> In the spirit of open source, Autodesk engaged DM Solutions, UMN, Steve Lime
> and other developers, etc. to try to find a way to work together.
>
> Granted, it was behind closed doors because an NDA was required for a public
> company like Autodesk to even have such a conversation with outsiders, but
> we thought we had a very good representation of the leaders in the
> community.
>
>
>
> Our collective thinking was that a common name for the products would be
> ideal.  Having both products under the same banner was good, but only if
> both products and the foundation could share that common name.  There was
> going to be potential for confusion, but sharing a common prefix for two
> different products is not unheard of and it was going to be a major change.
> We all wanted to keep building on MapServer momentum instead of ignoring
> MapServer and building something independent of it.
>
>
>
> After all the feedback from the community, it's more than obvious that the
> naming is an major issue.  But the naming of both the products really
> represents the willingness to share the brand or not.  A "MapServer
> Foundation" cannot equally represent both MapServer and MapGuide.  The names
> are the brand.  If a product can't use the name, then it isn't using the
> brand.
>
>
>
> Autodesk decided that it would rather take the harder road and work with an
> existing community, than go it alone and work against that community.
>
> And the MapServer stakeholders decided they would take the hard road and
> work with Autodesk to find a common path, rather then compete head-to-head.
>
>
>
> Then the story broke, and the MapServer community had the reaction we all
> saw to the name. The general reaction to the announcement outside of the
> MapServer community has actually been quite positive.
>
>
>
> If a common name brand can't be used, then one alternative will be that
> MapServer is not going to be leading the startup of a foundation that can
> house both MapServer and Tux.  As well, such a foundation can not be called
> the "MapServer Foundation" any more than it should be called the "MapGuide
> Foundation".  In many ways, voting against sharing the name brand is
> actually voting against working with Autodesk on starting the MapServer
> Foundation. Autodesk will not be willing to put their investment into a
> foundation that hides their name brand under the name of another web-based
> mapping project. It has already invested a lot of money in promoting the
> "MapServer Foundation", which no one else has ever done.
>
>
>
> So this was the thinking and these are the choices.  We didn't do it all
> perfectly and not having broader community input was a real problem. I wish
> that we could have put the following question out there for community
> feedback from the very start.
>
>
>
> Here is the poll question, please cast your vote and comment on the poll
> online at:
>
>
>
> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/polls/ms_autodesk
>
>
>
> -------------
>
>
>
> What serves the MapServer Community best?
>
>
>
> a) Work with Autodesk under the MapServer Foundation, creating a unified
> brand name, with MapServer and Autodesk lending their respective brand
> equities to each other and working together to make open source web mapping
> the platform of choice.
>
>
>
> b) Work with Autodesk to release its product through a foundation with a
> different name such as "MapTools", with MapServer now competing directly
> with the new brand name that will be created and heavily promoted by
> Autodesk, even though they will likely be housed by the same foundation.
>
>
>
> Gary Lang
>
> Tyler Mitchell