topic Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ???? in Libraries & objects

GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:38:34 GMT

Djordje the GDL objects for example in the Cigraph demo addons have copyrights ? . Not for sale but for personal use i can modify it ?
I ask that because the gdl code is easy to rip, and adapt to other purpose than the original one and the gdl developers
have excellent gdl skills- they are good gdl teachers.
gdl programing is free for all archicad users and it is very hard to preserve the copyright for a curious gdl user

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

David Larrew — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:57:53 GMT

The GDL developers' copyright protection has been, and still is, a hot topic in GDL circles. In most all cases the code written by an individual developer is "unofficially" copyrighted even if the the code does not contain a documented/visible "copyright". Unfortunately, as with all editable digital content, this does not prevent users from "cracking" and/or altering the copyrighted content.

And then there is the whole "intellectual property" issue...

Being one of the many GDL enthusiasts that initially learned GDL by opening and looking at existing objects code, I don't have a problem altering the code of an object that I paid for to suit my personal purposes. But if altered/borrowed code is used for profit or distribution... Not good!

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Fabrizio Diodati — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:17:00 GMT

I fully agree with David,

Cigraph's library parts attached to our plug-in are protected by copyright because the rights are related to the whole software package and the objects are part of the package itself but, if you want to change/modify an object for you personal use in order to make it better fit to your needs I think that nobody will blame you to make something of wrong.
Very different if you modify the library part developed by somebody else (and for commercial purpose) and then you sell it or use it for other profit purposes… in this last case, in my opinion, the best choice is to directly contact the library parts original developer in order to ask him/her if he/she agree with you.

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Dwight — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:50:54 GMT

Copyright and intellectual property rights in GDL are also complicated by the fact that GDL is a language licensed to all ArchiCAD users. Expressions in that language cannot be “owned” to exclude others from speaking, although I do know of a GDL developer who has gone to the extent of patenting a specialized parameter formula after he felt that [censored] appropriated [stole] his statement to use in their own library.

Everyone knows intrinsically when they cross over from learning GDL by deconstructing a routine to taking a complex object, tweaking it and then re-selling it. Or worse, giving away or re-selling objects purchased commercially.

Copyright laws are complicated by the fact that they are remedied only by expensive civil action. Except in Bulgaria where you can be taken out and shot. You can’t call the copyright police to arrest someone – you must sue them yourself. So be certain the stakes are high enough to bother.

While the RIAA contends that sharing music on the internet deprives them of income, I am far from satisfied that sharing music is criminal as they would have us believe.

As an artist, I believe that imitators will always steal ideas and methods, perhaps to reap even bigger profits. My job is to keep making new things.

I’m completely in favor of stealing GDL ideas and methods if it leads to better objects, having been quite disappointed at several of the objects I’ve purchased over the years.

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:17:23 GMT

Picasso said "Good artists borrow, great artists steal."

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Dwight — Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:21:23 GMT

There is much in common between creative and criminal.
That is why there is taste jail.

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:17:56 GMT

I think there are two sides to the GDL copyright question. On one side we want GDL to flourish. To do this there needs to be a way for people to learn "borrow" and steal code to either create or alter objects. The GDL world is filled with objects of varying quality, from very good to very bad. One of the great things about GDL is that it is forgiving and one can start to create some basic objects with minimal training. David Nicholson Cole's GDL Cookbook is a perfect example of where you can learn and borrow scripts from to cook your own GDL or reheat some of the objects that others have written.

I completely agree that adjusting GDL for your own needs from libraries that you have purchased is legitimate. Reheating and selling that is a not a good thing.

The other side of the GDL copyright question is a difficult one. GDL can be simple but it can also be extremely complex and powerful. A manufacturer can embed all their proprietary information in a product for everything from visualizing the product to creating the parts in the factory. The logic of how a product is put together and relates to other systems can be embedded in the GDL object.

In my mind one of the biggest roadblocks of getting manufacturers to put out complex objects are exactly the issues we are discussing here. Why would I put a library of objects out there as a manufacturer if I have to worry that my competitors can grab that library that took me 20 years to develop as a business and one year to develop as a library of GDL objects and they could copy it in an afternoon?

I have raised this question with Graphisoft about protecting of GDL scripts for several years now. There is no way currently of protecting them. The mechanics of creating an option to really protect the scripts is not a difficult one, it is just one that has not been a priority for Graphisoft.

So we need both, very open object to learn from and a mechanism to protect and lock them if we so desire.

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:51:10 GMT

Kimon wrote:
A manufacturer can embed all their proprietary information in a product for everything from visualizing the product to creating the parts in the factory. The logic of how a product is put together and relates to other systems can be embedded in the GDL object.

In my mind one of the biggest roadblocks of getting manufacturers to put out complex objects are exactly the issues we are discussing here. Why would I put a library of objects out there as a manufacturer if I have to worry that my competitors can grab that library that took me 20 years to develop as a business and one year to develop as a library of GDL objects and they could copy it in an afternoon?

I have raised this question with Graphisoft about protecting of GDL scripts for several years now. There is no way currently of protecting them. The mechanics of creating an option to really protect the scripts is not a difficult one, it is just one that has not been a priority for Graphisoft.

So we need both, very open object to learn from and a mechanism to protect and lock them if we so desire.

I couldn’t agree more. Trus Joist was apprehensive about releasing an object library for this very reason. The information built into these objects is specific to Trus Joist and does not apply to other I-joist manufacturers. It's in our best interest as well as the user's to prevent them from using our libraries to specify a competitor or a competitor from using our libraries to create their own.

We have made our concerns known to Graphisoft about this issue and would like to see others do the same.

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Karl Ottenstein — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:01:03 GMT

Kimon wrote:
Why would I put a library of objects out there as a manufacturer if I have to worry that my competitors can grab that library that took me 20 years to develop as a business and one year to develop as a library of GDL objects and they could copy it in an afternoon?

Ditto Kimon and Sean's comments - this is the reason that I have never invested any effort in producing objects for sale.

Karl

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Richard Morrison — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:30:30 GMT

Kimon wrote:
<snip>
In my mind one of the biggest roadblocks of getting manufacturers to put out complex objects are exactly the issues we are discussing here. Why would I put a library of objects out there as a manufacturer if I have to worry that my competitors can grab that library that took me 20 years to develop as a business and one year to develop as a library of GDL objects and they could copy it in an afternoon?

I have raised this question with Graphisoft about protecting of GDL scripts for several years now. There is no way currently of protecting them. The mechanics of creating an option to really protect the scripts is not a difficult one, it is just one that has not been a priority for Graphisoft.

So we need both, very open object to learn from and a mechanism to protect and lock them if we so desire.

I would like to offer a differing opinion. I suspect that it is generally only the people who are professionally creating GDL objects, and have a vested interest in maintaining a livelihood, who believe these objects need to be "protected". From a user's standpoint, though, objects have FAR LESS value than the creators undoubtedly believe they do. Sure, I like well-crafted "cool" objects as much as the next person, but they are far from indispensible. They may make our lives easier when they work well, but as an architect, I can probably get along almost as well with an abstract box as a finely detailed Herman-Miller GDL desk, especially if it, or something close, is readily available as a 3D DWG for rendering purposes.

So why would a manufacturer invest time in putting together a library of their products? Essentially, because by doing so, they hope to encourage us to specify it. Why do I specify a particular brand? Either because a) it's clearly a superior product for the purpose, or b) because in a wide field of relative equals there is a little *something* extra there that tips the balance. It might be better customer service, it might be a comfort level through familiarity, or it might be something else that's relatively minor. And the gesture of having a ready-made library might be the thing that tips the balance.

Since Sean McMurtrey is here, TrusJoist is a good example. I have been specifying TJI's for years and like their product. I was delighted to see their wonderful objects become available, because it makes my life a little easier and therefore it reinforces my loyalty to their product. But I've been getting along just fine for years with showing their products as a SINGLE LINE on my plans and don't really NEED a special object to get my projects built correctly. So while I'm happy to have these objects and think they help my practice, the price I would be willing to pay for them is probably quite small, if anything.

Further, when there are problems with objects, and they are compiled or otherwise protected, and therefore uneditable and uncorrectable, the frustration and ill-will that this creates easily cancels out their worth and might make me consider a competitor in spite.

I also don't think that the time/money investment in developing a manufacturer's product line is necessarily as great as some would have us believe. I've seen (and beta tested) signficant product lines developed in a couple of weeks by a really experienced GDL writer.

I realize that I am downplaying the "potential" of a manufacturer's object library in terms of the BIM concept. Sure, the manufacturer's furniture or window objects potentially have the opportunity to automatically feed into purchase orders which then flow into the facilities management program and blah, blah, blah, but UNLESS competitors are ALL on the same playing field and writing GDL objects to the same protocols, the specifiers will get locked into the conforming manufacturers.

I've tried using the Andersen window objects, for example, from GDL Central (I think). They are superficially okay, but the parameters are so different from every other window object that I use, that it's a mess. Additionally, I'm then in a very bad position if I want to switch to a different manufacturer. I would pay NOTHING for these window objects because they make my life MORE difficult. I want to stay as generic as possible, as long as possible. And most of my clients and contractors want that flexibility, as well.

In short, I believe it is easily possible for GDL object developers to "protect" themselves right out of business if they aren't careful. Just my opinion, of course.

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:12:32 GMT

Kimon wrote:
A manufacturer can embed all their proprietary information in a product for ... creating the parts in the factory.

Unfortunately not at the moment. I don't believe there are any manufacturers other than log home manufacturers who are able to use AC for any CNC machining. GDL scripts are not understood by any machines. I've worked with many and they primarily rely on 2d scripts as the majority that are in use are only two axis relying on different type of code usually generated with an Autocad DWG type file and relying on layers and colors for performing the different functions as opposed to a single script that can simply "run the parts". The more complex multi axis machines rely on script/routines that are, again, usually generated from reading a series of 2d dwg/dxf and then converted to describe the 3d shape. The most complex machines are designed to run by various specific programs, SolidWorks, Cabinet Vision etc., or by their own GUI that is primarily used for most basic production shapes.

Kimon wrote:
Why would I put a library of objects out there as a manufacturer if I have to worry that my competitors can grab that library ...

I have raised this question with Graphisoft about protecting of GDL scripts for several years now. There is no way currently of protecting them. The mechanics of creating an option to really protect the scripts is not a difficult one, it is just one that has not been a priority for Graphisoft.

There used to be a program called Hide-a-Script unfortunately it has not been developed further since it's introduction. The last time I used it was with 7.0 and it seemed to work as expected, I no longer/rarely use OS 9 so I have not tried the it on any 8 parts. Maybe someday, like Plotflow for X, it will resurface.

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

David Larrew — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:47:08 GMT

Jeffrey wrote:
There used to be a program called Hide-a-Script unfortunately it has not been developed further since it's introduction. The last time I used it was with 7.0 and it seemed to work as expected, I no longer/rarely use OS 9 so I have not tried the it on any 8 parts. Maybe someday, like Plotflow for X, it will resurface.

Hidden scripts are not necessarily protected, especially since there were/are ways to strip out these hidden scripts.

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Karl Ottenstein — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:56:58 GMT

Jeffrey wrote:
Kimon wrote:
A manufacturer can embed all their proprietary information in a product for ... creating the parts in the factory.
Unfortunately not at the moment. I don't believe there are any manufacturers other than log home manufacturers who are able to use AC for any CNC machining. GDL scripts are not understood by any machines.

True ... but the key words in Kimon's quote are "can embed". I don't think he meant to suggest that a CNC machine could read a GDL script ... but a GDL script can certainly write a text file that a CNC machine can process. I think he was just talking about possibilities...

Happy holidays,
Karl

Re: GDL COPYRIGHT ????

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:57:32 GMT

David wrote:
Jeffrey wrote:
Hidden scripts are not necessarily protected, especially since there were/are ways to strip out these hidden scripts.

It doesnt take a GDL guru to get passed the HIDESCRIPT command. HIDESCRIPT isnt doing anything but keeping honest people honest.