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

[Steve Hall]

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

Hmm... I think the license just needs to mean "You can use these
however you want, as long as you don't re-sell them as another detail
library." We don't care how the user applies them. We just don't want
our efforts hijacked by somebody else for profit.


 > > 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....
 >
 > 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.

Yes, it all gets very complicated in a hurry. AutoCAD and MicroStation
already sell systems which tie specifications to the drawing file.
AutoCAD's newest tool actually uses 3D XML smart blocks which contain
all a manufacturer's data. For example, a window is embedded with all
the materials to have it rendered correctly, but can also tell you
what the delivery lead time is. It all can be web-based, you
effectively Xref across the web.

These type of parametric or smart system will soon overrun the old 2D
detail library method of producing drawings. We'll be able to slice
through the model if we actually want a printed detail. I estimate
approximately five years until the contractor is estimating and
building from the same 3D model the architect builds, no paper. Frank
Gehry already does this to a limited degree.


 > 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.

Yes, the standards problem will wreck havoc between our two countries!
It will be two human generations before we finally rid ourselves of
the English measures system and get to metric. I have this month for
the first time in my life encountered a building schematically
designed in metric, done by the US military Corp of Engineers. Their
reasoning was that many of their designs are built overseas. But they
have encouraged us to redo all the construction documents in the
English system to keep costs down. It is impossible to buy any metric
building materials here except for nuts and bolts, and all our codes
are based and given in English measure. I've never met anyone here who
has done *any* US construction work in metric.

So I guess it comes down to license and standards, and the first
doesn't bother me until we can resolve a strategy for the second. ;)

We have:
* Measurement standards (English, metric)
* File format standards (DWG, DXF, XML)
* CAD drawing standards (lineweights, colors)
* Drafting standards (numbering, symbols, text)
* Block or parts standards (steel shape AISC W36x182)


Steve Hall  [ digite__mindspring.com (insert "ct@") ]