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

[Chris Croome]

Hi Steve

You have some good questions.

On Fri 07-Feb-2003 at 12:06:46AM -0500, Steve Hall wrote:
> 
> 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.

I'm happy ignoring the aesthetic side of it for the moment, though I
do think that this is something that would probably generally
improve through Free software and shared GPLed details and designs.

> 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.

Of course IANAL [1], and the following is based on the situation in
the UK.  Clients basically commision a services from architects and
the like.  The client wants the architect to produce a design that
they can afford, that the planning authority will allow, that is as
cheap as possible to build and doesn't leak.  Sometimes they also
want something that looks nice.  They also want (well, not always,
in these days of design and build) the architect to run the job on
site etc.

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.

> 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?

>    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?"

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.   

> 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?

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.

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

Of course :-)

> * 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?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, we don't use such terms in
the UK.

> * 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?

Yes I think so!

> 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.)

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? 

Chris


[1] "I Am Not A Lawyer"
    http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/i/IANAL.html

-- 
http://chris.croome.net/