[cad-linux] Re: CAD with server/client architecture
- From: Eric Wilhelm <ewilhelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: cad-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:27:15 -0500
> The following was supposedly scribed by
> Jeffrey McGrew
> on Monday 12 May 2003 01:46 pm:
>> What about OpenDWG?
>
>OpenDWG is a project run by a non-profit run with money
>from Microsoft and all the non-AutoDesk CAD vendors.
>Every time a new DWG format comes out, they reverse
>engineer it and make tools that allow for other people
>to read it. I don't know about the availability
>of these tools for OSS projects.
>
I'm not sure on the licensing, but you are free to use it if you aren't
distributing your app. If you want to build and sell a product using the
library (which is closed-source), you have to join the consortium at the
right "donor level" or whatever they call it.
>However, DWG isn't a very good format for an OO
>databased CAD system.
[snip]
>DWG is a mess.
I'll second that, and third it, and I'll even go beyond that if asked.
>DWF, Autodesk's new format, looks more promising
>for a OO CAD system's export.
DWF: ICK
export: ICK
Both of these (proprietary exchange formats and export, as in: "the idea of
exporting anything")should be done away with if we are going to get to real
data exchange and interoperability. DWF isn't even close to what we need,
since it is a publishing format (but vml (vector-markup-language?) and pdf
(and a few others) are already available, so what is the point of DWF?) The
DXF standard has been open and available for a long time, but is extremely
inefficient, particularly for the ACAD users that have to export it, which is
why companies are required to use autocad to work with people using autocad.
>
>> Perhaps it's time to stop waiting and start working towards=20
>> that day :-)
>> I know I'm fed up with M$/Autodesk :-)
>
>The people
>who do need the CAD system aren't people that can also make
>one for themselves.
But there are a huge number of professional organizations and other groups in
a position to fund this. The key is to turn it into a profitable business
through support, not licensing. Removing the licensing restrictions and ties
(except for the required-by-GPL "contribution of modifications to derived
work") opens even the support market to competition (though the leaders will
have the edge because of their extensive knowledge of the system) and it
creates a standard that will outlive MS and AutoDesk, and even the standards
body that creates it.
--Eric
Other related posts:
