epiphany about the idea of the Foundation

[Rob McCulley]

Gary,

I disagree with the idea that someone has to contribute to be a member of the foundation.  There are plenty of people who use Mapserver that don't contribute to it directly.  I think users of Mapserver should be just as eligible for membership on the foundation as contributors.  I think excluding regular users of Mapserver from the foundation if they don't contribute is pretty much against the community of Mapserver.

Rob McCulley


-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU]On
Behalf Of Gary Lang
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:17 PM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation


Brian,

Good points. 

I guess it depends on the context of usage. For example in this case I
said:

" And to be clear, I wouldn't care which code base they
wanted to use."

This would seem to be an effective disambiguation of the code bases. It
wouldn't solve confusion around the foundation and code base names being
similar, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for Apache, OpenOffice,
Eclipse, et al.

I am still interested in the answer to the question. I think anyone who
joins the foundation should contribute something. A new project, new
code mods, money, etc.

Thoughts?

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Fischer, Brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:02 PM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation

This partial line "agree to either support or use MapServer in their
products" in your post is what I feel is confusing when talking and
reading about all of this.  What does this mean?  The terminology is
just not logical.

Does it mean you are using the original MapServer code?  

Does it mean you are using the Autodesk open source code (MapServer
Enterprise)?  

Does it mean you are using the guidelines of the foundation (MapServer
Foundation)?  

This is simply confusing to me (I can't imagine how a new user is going
to interpret it) and I have been following the "original MapServer"
mailing list for over 5 years.  To me I would interpret this as meaning
a person/organization is using the "original MapServer" code in their
product, but I think you intend it to me something different.  Is this
the feeling others have?

Brian Fischer
Houston Engineering, Inc.
Maple Grove, MN
(763) 493-4522

-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Gary Lang
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:45 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.