MS Foundation and product names

[Chip Taylor]

Over 100 messages in less than 24 hours.  WOW!

I am a Mapserver user and not a contributor, other than my company has
discussed donations to fund development of certain features we would like to
see, so I am limited in what I can contribute to this discussion.

However, I think back to three months ago when my CIO came to me and asked
me to investigate a way to embed GIS in our main product offering.  I
evaluated most, if not all, web mapping solutions available regardless of
cost.  Mapserver was my choice, and remains so today.  Back then if I had
come to the foundation web page and found Webserver Enterprise and Webserver
Community Edition (or Cheetah or Raptor or Osprey or whatever), I would have
naturally tried the Enterprise edition assuming it was much fuller featured
and more powerful than the other.  If that edition had not met my needs (and
it would not have), I would not have downloaded the REAL Mapserver that very
much does meet my needs.  Instead, I would have gone on with my search for
product.  It would have been MY loss and my customer's loss.

So, I implore you.  Do not name these two products that have no relation to
each other as they are presently named.  It is misleading and detrimental to
the goals of this community.  And it is harmful to the emerging GIS world as
well.

One other point, Gary Lang of Autodesk stated that there could well be a
commercial version of the OS Mapserver (whatever edition) and that the
commercial edition would include support.  For most companies, that would
ensure that the free/open source editions a come-on to entice them to
purchase the commercial version that included support.  Do we really want
this wonderful product (the original Mapserver) to be merely a sales tool
for Autodesk.

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no animosity towards Autodesk since I rarely
deal with their product.

Chip Taylor
Prepared Response, Inc.