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

[Chris Croome]

Hi Steve

On Fri 07-Feb-2003 at 07:06:12PM -0500, digitect at mindspring.com
wrote:
> 
> 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.)

Yes I agree.

> 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.

I think that the convincing will be easy in some practices and
almost impossible in others. I suspect that the way in which free
software has been adopted in some places will potentially have
parallels -- many companies probably don't know that their sys admin
actually uses a linux box for their mail/name/web server rather than
NT, in the same way I can imagine free details being used in
drawings without the management being aware of it.

The competition between architectural practices isn't over issues
like who can do the neatest floor/window details (well it might be
in the pub or in the architectural press!) -- the client is
interested in the building being delivered on time, and in budget
etc. 

When I started working in architectural offices it was just at the
time when the large public-sector house building that went on in the
60's, 70's and into the 80's was being run down. OK, it was the
public sector rather than the private sector but there were still
things like detail books that were compiled from projects that the
GLC (Greater London Council) had done -- these details books were
used by people in both the private and public sector.

Building component companies, generally make digital details
available for inclusion into architects drawings and there is
generally no way that, for example if I used a marley drainage
detail [1], the use of a drawing of something as generic as some
drainage pipes can be tied to a specific manaufacturer.  

> > 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.

I agree that it is very interesting to speculate how things would
work when eveyone is using free stuff. 

> 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.)

Very interesting question. I think the question of what constitutes
'destribution' will be one the the keys here -- does giving
electronic copies to the electricial and structural engineers and
the contractor constitute distribution?

> "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.

Sounds good. In the long terms it would also make sense to be able
to have this linked to the specification and also if everything was
make of solid modles then quantities could be calculated etc.

> 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?

I haven't actually used CAD for several years, when I did I used
AutoCAD 12/13/14 and we kind of made our own layers standards up as
we went along.

I currently have QCad [2] installed on my home laptop.

For reuse of drawings they must be in a open format. I think that
the staring point must be the nuts and bolts -- this is, literally,
more-or-less all that is on the Qcad library site. For example start
with a drawing of a standard brick. This some becomes more
complicated -- I bet different countries have different standard
brick sizes etc.

Chris


[1] http://www.marleyplumbinganddrainage.com/no_layer/products/soil_wst/cad.htm

[2] http://www.qcad.org/

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