I would stay with MapServer Foundation. But just don't call anything MapServer other than MapServer.
..Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: UMN MapServer Users List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fawcett, David > Sent: Wednesday, 30 November, 2005 11:12 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation - Open Letter > > > Gary, > > Thank you for being open to not using the name MapServer to > describe MapGuide. For the foundation, may I suggest: > > Open Source Web Mapping Foundation? > Web Mapping Foundation? > > > Peoples Front for the Liberation of Web Mapping Products? > > David. > > -----Original Message----- > From: UMN MapServer Users List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Lang > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:01 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation - Open Letter > > > OK. So here's a sincere call for input. > > Here's the rub. Regardless of who made the mistake of > suggesting it, I liked the name and agreed that we would go > with it, so I'll take responsibility for MSE. > > On the back of that, we - what can now be seen as the TSC-x > cabal + 1 ADSK person - started drifting from foundation > names that had more umbrella-like characteristics like > osgis.org, mapcommunity, maptools, etc. and towards something > that focuses on what we were putting out together. Based on > the fact that both products were named MapServer in the root, > we went with "MapServer Foundation". > > Now let's assume we change the name back to MapGuide. Why > would I now want to cripple any hope of adoption by anybody > by putting it in a foundation (that I helped name) that > highlights one map serving product over another? > > So far the community is showing more common sense than we > were on this, so I'm interested to hear your opinions. > > Gary > > -----Original Message----- > From: UMN MapServer Users List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Binko > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 7:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation - Open Letter > > Hello, everyone > > I'm very sorry to be in this situation twice in one month (HylaFAX is > another project I'm involved in, and recently had a > possible-fork/naming > > clash), but I thouht I would add one more perspective and perhaps a > request. > > When I first read the announcement about the foundation, I > had two distinct reactions. First, I sent a note to Frank, > who I have found best represent the "soul" of the OpenGIS > community. I asked him why I so many people I respected > (including danmo, and hobu, among others) were going along > with what looked like a land-grab by a company that has > historically been less-than-friendly to open source and open > standards. (I haven't > gotten a response, but he's been busy and I feel its > appropriate that I > not wait any longer to put in my two cents.) > > My second reaction was empowerment. You see, I have been discussing > working with another firm to help them upgrade their online mapping > systems. I've pushed open-source GIS solutions (Mapserver > and PostGIS in > particular), and the response I've gotten is that it's "still in its > infancy and has no major players like IBM/Novell in the Linux > space." > Autodesk (for all of their faults) has given me a winning > hand in this > game, and I've already setup the meeting to discuss it with my > counterpart. > > These reactions seem to map directly to something said > earlier: Autodesk's involvment and the foundation are major > benefits to this community, and the poor choice of naming and > lack of community involvement prior to the launch are major > mistakes. > > The lack of involvement cannot be fixed: it can only be > acknowledged and learned from. I think Gary has acknowledged > it from Autodesk's standpoint, and I'm sure others will admit > that Ed's approach ("the third > option") would have been better. > > As an aside, I think this community is to be congratulated > that nobody has yet suggested "OpenMapserver" or setting up a > fork on sf.net or any of the other threats that I've seen in > other contexts: it shows that it is not the code or even the > Man-Years that are of value to this group, but the community > that builds, supports, and uses this great tool suite. > > I was surprised to read that Frank and Dan were both involved > in moving > _towards_ the Mapserver Enterprise naming. It is one of very > few mistakes > I've seen from them, and I suppose they were due: however, it is a > mistake, nonetheless. The good news is that it is a fixable mistake. > > Frank, you have one of the most authoritative voices in this > community, and I'm sure Autodesk has considered your position > in choosing this naming path. I think they would do so > again, if you were to suggest that the damage being done to > the community by this error will outwiegh any branding > benefits they may gain. > > It might be useful to remember that many of the best Open > Source software > out there has been through naming conflicts: > Phoenix/FireBird/FireFox, > FlexFAX/HylaFAX, etc. They are painful, but not deadly. > > Autodesk, welcome aboard: I'm sorry you're initiation has > been painful, > but if you stick with it, this really will be a rewarding > experience for > > you. > > Bill >
