[freearchitecture] Re: Re: The problem (what is it?)

[digitect at mindspring.com]

on 2/7/2003 6:03 PM Chris Croome said the following:
> 
> [snip]
>
> If in this process, for example, the architect uses some GPLed
> details for the wall / floor / roof junctions then this doesn't have
> to change the relationship between the client and the architect --
> the client is paying the architect for a design also paying the
> architect to have insurance so that if the building leaks they can
> be sued. It is the architect that would be liable, GPLed designs
> come with no warranty.

Very good analysis. I think this reasonable to assume.


> > 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.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here?

What I was trying to say (but not too well) is that current law in the
US separates the drawings from the author. If you somehow use CAD
files from a project done by another architect, you are the only one
responsible. You can't get off by saying, "it was a standard detail."
(As you pointed out above.)

> > All this to ask, "Do we really want Free CAD files?"
> 
> Yes :-)
> 
> Copying of details from one job to another happens all the time
> already. Creating an online archive of details that anyone could use
> and improve would just make the current practice more efficient and
> would, no doubt, often result in better details.   

I heartily agree. Just wondering how I would convice an employer to
allow me to draw details that would be "donated" to the project where
they could immediately be used by the competition.


> > * Isn't this just a propped up economy anyway? Couldn't
> >   architectural services be cheaper (or better quality) if all CAD
> >   info was Free?
> 
> I think that the amount of money that people are paid in the
> building industry can, like we are doing with aesthetic issues, be
> put aside for the moment.

Again, I was just trying to look ahead of the immediate problem to
when all architects work out of a standard library. Like a Free
operating system, the efficiencies become evident when most people are
using one standard, but the getting there is my current problem stated
above.


> Free software need not be free in cost:
> 
>   Selling Free Software
>   http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/selling.html 
> 
> Free architectural designs would, with the current system
> (capitalism) be sold, this is to be expected.

I wonder if GPL details be used in the process of providing for-profit
design services? I'm more inclined to think they need to be licensed
under an LGPL type license, where proprietary links were allowed.
(Free details included within for-profit drawing sets.)

> This is how I would argue it if I was still working in an
> architectural office:
> 
> If we use these Free designs, customise them to suite our needs (eg
> localise them, eg create a Uk version of a US detail) and make the
> improvements available then we should be able to produce better
> buildings quicker, we can collectively learn from mistakes more
> efficiently.  
> 
> If we use these details and allow our improvements to be added to
> archiforge (the sourceforge of the architectural world, just an idea
> at the moment!) then we also get free off-site back-up of details
> and easy access to them from anywhere and also there is a feedback
> system for users of the details so we will get to hear of any
> problems that other people encounter when deploying them.  
> 
> I think there are lots of ways to argue this -- if anyone want's to
> play devils advocate we can throw the arguments around some more.  
> 
> Perhaps we should develop the archiforge idea more? 

"ArchiForge" -- great name!

I like the idea of starting with a detail library. But we already have
the beginnings of a neat system here that adds much more to drawing
than just a detail library. It inserts symbols, changes settings, has
menus and toolbars, can convert layer/entity colors, can check all
sorts of various compliances, draws doors within walls, etc. It is
dynamic moreso than a static library would be. I was hoping we could
also incorporate this kind of drawing software tool, too.

But these two ideas are pretty modular, a library might be a great way
to get off the ground. A drawing system wouldn't have to be too
closely tied to the library.

First, do you have a copy of AutoCAD? What is your feeling about
drawing standards? I am learning that every CAD package has a
completely different methodology, perhaps details wouldn't be so
reusable platform to platform. (For example, AutoCAD's ByLayer is a
ridiculous concept in DataCAD.)

What sort of drawing standard are you used to drawing with?


Steve Hall  [ digNiteOct at SminPdspArinMg.com (remove "NOSPAM") ]