<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.6617.79">
<TITLE>RE: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Poll: MapServer and Autodesk</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Mike Davis said:<BR>
<BR>
"While I seem to fall on the other side on this one, I feel that<BR>
co-branding is a great thing as well. By creating a foundation that<BR>
many open source mapping projects can live under we are saying "Hey,<BR>
these projects may be different as night & day, but the developers are<BR>
share to a certain set of ideals and are committed to work together to<BR>
forward common goals". I think that concept is bigger than any one<BR>
project (Mapserver included), and I think it deserves a different<BR>
brand (or name) to reflect that. "<BR>
<BR>
"I agree. Honestly when I say "Mapserver" to my clients/bosses/etc...<BR>
all they hear is "Not ESRI". "<BR>
<BR>
This entire email of Mike's outlines the exact, entire rationale that we signers of the open letter had for doing what we did. Nothing more and nothing less. This was better said than my email was.<BR>
<BR>
Gary<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: UMN MapServer Users List on behalf of Mike Davis<BR>
Sent: Thu 12/22/2005 8:18 PM<BR>
To: MAPSERVER-USERS@LISTS.UMN.EDU<BR>
Cc: <BR>
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Poll: MapServer and Autodesk<BR>
> I'm on record for thinking that co-branding is a good thing for<BR>
> MapServer but I realize I'm in the minority. I've never been able to<BR>
> eloquently express why I think it is a good thing ... I guess I just<BR>
> think it is.<BR>
<BR>
While I seem to fall on the other side on this one, I feel that<BR>
co-branding is a great thing as well. By creating a foundation that<BR>
many open source mapping projects can live under we are saying "Hey,<BR>
these projects may be different as night & day, but the developers are<BR>
share to a certain set of ideals and are committed to work together to<BR>
forward common goals". I think that concept is bigger than any one<BR>
project (Mapserver included), and I think it deserves a different<BR>
brand (or name) to reflect that.<BR>
<BR>
In the long term, it is my hope that many projects, new and existing,<BR>
might find their way to the foundation.<BR>
<BR>
> In the end, I don't really care that much as I now have two excellent<BR>
> platforms for delivering solutions to my clients, two platforms that<BR>
> share quite a bit of underlying technology but that approach the web<BR>
> mapping problem from two different directions. Being able to say<BR>
> "MapServer" to my clients regardless of what I was actually going to<BR>
> do would, I feel, make my life easier ... but not sufficiently to get<BR>
> in a knot over it :)<BR>
<BR>
I agree. Honestly when I say "Mapserver" to my clients/bosses/etc...<BR>
all they hear is "Not ESRI". It is a scary world for them, because<BR>
they don't understand that a support structure can exist even though a<BR>
rep isn't knocking on your door and half-a-dozen copies of a<BR>
newsletter aren't arriving every month.<BR>
<BR>
The creation of an umbrella foundation is a good step to solidifying<BR>
the idea that a support network does exist. If there is a real entity<BR>
I can point people to with a logo, and a slogan, and a newsletter, and<BR>
multiple mature products/projects, they will feel much more<BR>
comfortable.<BR>
<BR>
-Mike<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>