Poll: MapServer and Autodesk

[Allan Doyle]

On Dec 22, 2005, at 18:49, Gary Lang 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.

I don't understand the "compete" thing. It represents a  
misunderstanding about open source. In the open source community,  
there may be a dominant package or there might not. For example,  
Apache dominates the HTTP server space. But MySQL and PostgreSQL are  
much more balanced. But do MySQL and PostgreSQL "compete" in the  
traditional sense of the word?

To me the answer is no. The existence of MySQL and PostgreSQL  
provides more choice. Companies that earn money supporting open  
source by providing customers with integrated solutions can choose  
one or the other depending on their needs. Companies can specialize  
in one or the other and become more effective integrators, and they  
can contribute code back to the code base to make the package more  
suitable to their needs when the next release comes around.

Mapserver was not the only "mapserver" out there in the open source  
community. There's GeoServer, SimpleMapServer, PMS, OpenMap, MIT  
OrthoServer, GISToolkit, and who knows what else. These packages  
provide choice and allow people to make a living.

Along comes Autodesk. If Autodesk had set up shop on sourceforge or  
anywhere, and had started supporting Tux as open source without  
talking to the MapServer folks, would that have been competition? Not  
any more than if some university group who had been developing the  
next big thing in map server code had done that. No one would have  
objected to a university doing it. No one should object to a company  
doing it. When Genasys went under, people were trying to get them to  
open source Genamap. There's no value in orphaned close-source code.  
There's plenty of value in a new, open source codebase.

Another good reason for different packages is that they often have  
different licensing. Ironically, now that Tux has been released under  
LGPL, it is less likely to get used in some enterprise settings than  
MapServer which is under a form of the MIT license.
>
> 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.

You did. But even the best sometimes don't come up with the right  
thing. In particular, you should know that traditional marketing  
would say you should have done more market research, i.e. talk to  
people outside the group. And more edgy marketers would say you  
should have done something viral, i.e. get people outside the group  
to buzz about it.
>
> 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.

The way to build on the MapServer momentum is to contribute to its  
code base, its documentation, talk about it to people, present papers  
at conferences, and use it when it makes sense to use it.

Releasing Tux would not have stopped MapServer. You would have had a  
parallel code base that by everyone's description appeals to a  
different, more "enterprise" audience. There would be choice and DM  
Solutions, Arnulf's company or anyone else could start using it in  
their work, thus strengthening the entire open source geo offerings.

Maybe there would be some cross over of people who would stop using  
MapServer and would start using Tux. But there might be some that go  
the other way. And, eventually, there could be borrowing of code from  
one base to the other, again making things stronger.

>
> 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.

As I hope I've pointed out, those were not the only two choices.  
Going it alone does not work against the community unless you keep  
saying it does. Then it can become true.

> 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.
They were right to try to help Autodesk enter the open source space.  
But they should not  enter into a common foundation out of fear of  
competition. They should enter into it because it is the right thing  
to do.
>
> 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.

But wouldn't that be the reaction of the people who did not know  
MapServer existed? I.e. the people who we have been hearing about on  
the lists, as the ones who thought Autodesk had somehow open sourced  
the Minnesota MapServer? The ones who do not know much about the  
overall geo open source area?
>
> 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.

If Autodesk is not willing to work with a foundation unless it's  
called "MapServer Foundation", then that would be Autodesk's  
prerogative. However, what would Autodesk do if some other big GIS  
vendor came along and decided to start a foundation?

I think Autodesk has to realize that open source is quite a different  
game than commercial software. Cooperation is key. Open discussion is  
key. Competition is not a big concept.

>
> 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.

c) Work with Autodesk to release its product through a foundation  
with a different name such as "MapTools", with MapServer and  
<newname> being supported by the same umbrella organization.

	Allan

>
> Gary Lang
>
> Tyler Mitchell
>
>

-- 
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org