[freearchitecture] The problem (what is it?)

[Steve Hall]

Chris Croome wrote:
 >
 > I agree with Steve that identifying open standards that can be used
 > is a very good starting point.
 >
 > Another thing that needs thinking about from the beginning is
 > licences and I think that the FSF approved [2] Design Science
 > License [3] seems to be the best one to use for drawings at the
 > moment.
 >
 > [snip]
 >
 > [2] http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
 > [3] http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt

Great references! I can see already that getting my head around these
topics will take some time. Being in the thick of a proprietary
situation, I thought I at least understood the problem. But now I'm
not sure how to even define it. Perhaps just simple fact collection:

1. Architecture (and design generally) is quite slippery to define.
    For now, let's ignore its expressive and aesthetic concerns and
    simply call it the provision of professional design services. That
    way we focus on the area most restricted by proprietary software,
    licenses, legal agreements and responsibilities and financial
    exchange.

2. In providing these design services, a patron offers money or some
    other financial reward. The professional (in the US at least)
    fulfills the contract through "instruments of service", namely,
    drawings and specifications. The owner technically doesn't buy
    these instruments. (Although most clients think they do, and don't
    understand why they don't own the drawings when a job is complete.)
    Even if they receive CAD files of the completed project, the
    architect's responsibility is not extended with the drawings.

3. Therefore, we could say that the nature of CAD, at least in
    architecture (in the US?), is Free. It is information transfer and
    the files themselves do not imply anything beyond that intended by
    their creator.

    HOWEVER, it is at this point that clarity breaks down for me. What
    if these files are transferred to another professional? This new
    person has immediately gained the entire benefit of the previous
    individual's efforts and can then provide the professional service
    at far less expense (or greater profit) than the first. They gain a
    distinct advantage from the freedom of the information, but
    short-circuit compensation of the original professional expertise.

All this to ask, "Do we really want Free CAD files?"


Possible Rebuttals:

* Isn't this just a propped up economy anyway? Couldn't architectural
   services be cheaper (or better quality) if all CAD info was Free?

* Should the design professional be compensated for his expertise? (!)

* Is it possible to disconnect the instruments of service from the
   service? Should patrons own them, or at least co-own them with their
   author?

* If the instruments are truly disconnected from the service, why then
   does the architect maintain legal responsibility for them? Can you
   have it both ways?


This seems to be a core issue to the task of creating file libraries
and architectural information systems that seamlessly coordinate
collaborative efforts. I guess I'm just trying to develop a position
on how I could both convince my employer to *use* Free Architecture,
and at the same time *contribute* to Free Architecture. (Hey, I wanna
eat.)


Steve Hall  [ digite__dspring.com (insert "ct at min") ]