I'd like to hear about projects that focus on federated workflows / distributed labor and other things relevant to a multi-person workflow. What do we know of and what should be on the directory list? One reason I want to learn more about this is so that we can get some of our test projects / workflows going in a way that looks feasible to other.
@bitacovir oh wow the screenshots for ProjeQtor. I thought I could handle busy interfaces... I was wrong. I have zero experience in construction planning, so I don't know if such project management tools are generic and can be applied in AEC. In contrast, I know there are highly specialised tools like Sablono (proprietary) which suggest that there are certainly enough AEC specific features to warrant specialised tools. Is there someone here with experience who can judge whether it should be added to the directory?
@Moult personally I have a good feeling to ProjeQtor, its interface is messy, but follows a good idea, however, as I mentioned before about another PM app, CPM approach is out-dated today, but small firms, and some medium firms still use it, because is good enough for those scales
I just want to see their OS repo, and their license type
@Moult said: @bitacovir oh wow the screenshots for ProjeQtor. I thought I could handle busy interfaces... I was wrong. I have zero experience in construction planning, so I don't know if such project management tools are generic and can be applied in AEC. In contrast, I know there are highly specialised tools like Sablono (proprietary) which suggest that there are certainly enough AEC specific features to warrant specialised tools. Is there someone here with experience who can judge whether it should be added to the directory?
@Moult said: @bitacovir I see. I'm just cautious that they might be making claims of suitability for an industry they might not fully know the details of.
What do others think? Should we add it? What is your experience in construction planning?
@Moult I think it is ok. We already have in the Software Directory GanttProject and ProjectLibre. They are not focused on Building Industry and I think they are more basic than ProjeQtor. But if you think that it is too far from the AEC field, we can delete it.
@bitacovir cheers! I'm not qualified to know whether it should be there or not, so happy to have it there until someone makes an informed claim otherwise. Thanks for adding!
@Moult@bitacovir I also think there are so few opensource project management tools that we should just add it. In the description we can write that it generic. If we get so many that we need to remove some generic solutions then we can do that.
I fear the list might soon be unmanageable. But I guess that's a technical issue we'll just have to fix. For now I've made the tables collapsible (but expanded by default) which helps.
@duncan I've split off software dev tools into its own page. This is because software dev tools are growing very quickly, and it could use some categorisation by itself. Also, this helps to not scare end-users who are looking at the directory.
I also split off proprietary extensions. Acknowledging their existence is helpful, but as a condition of use is to accept non-free software, I wouldn't exactly call them free software and I don't think they really belong on that page. Certainly in the software world people don't usually consider them free software.
@Moult said:
I also split off proprietary extensions. Acknowledging their existence is helpful, but as a condition of use is to accept non-free software, I wouldn't exactly call them free software and I don't think they really belong on that page.
I'm fine with the split, wondered about something similar myself. That observation tough is valid for any windows-only application. The strength of highlighting Free extensions to proprietary software is that people can use them in their workflow now. pyRevit is driving a wedge into anyone who says libre software isn't good enough to be useful. Rhino.Inside is doing the same. Dynamo in it's way also.
@iosvarms are you sure it is open source? I do not see any source, nor do I see any free software license.
@duncan Correct, the observation is indeed valid for any Windows-only application. For that reason I've just moved XBim Xplorer to the "extensions to proprietary software" page. Yeah, I don't mind highlighting them on their own page, and I think we should maintain that page well to help people realise they may already be using open source to produce commercial grade output.
@iosvarms said:
Added to the wiki --- Open IFC viewer. A 3D visualization and inspection tool for IFC files from Open Design Alliance [https://openifcviewer.com]
I don't think it is Open Source. We must be careful about the unethical and abusive use of the term "Open" in the name of some products with only marketing intentions (maybe we could call them OpenF*ck).
I have removed it from the wiki. There are a few misleading names that we should watch out for:
Open design alliance (not at all open) & all of their products
OpenSpace (not open at all)
Xeokit (claims in big letters that they are open source, not true. I've sent another message to the creator requesting him to change the wording - he has responded that he will, but hasn't yet done so)
Unreal Engine (source available, but not free software)
I think it's best to simply be aware of these but not mention them anywhere on the wiki. Mentioning them will simply promote them. If we see claims from people that they are open, we should correct them. The AEC journalist Martyn Day recently made the term "openwash", like greenwashing, but for open source. Maybe we can use that term.
@Moult said:
I think it's best to simply be aware of these but not mention them anywhere on the wiki. Mentioning them will simply promote them. If we see claims from people that they are open, we should correct them. The AEC journalist Martyn Day recently made the term "openwash", like greenwashing, but for open source. Maybe we can use that term.
Should we change the title of the wiki page from "AEC Free Software directory" to something like "AEC Libre Software Directory", "AEC Open Source Software Directory" or "AEC FLOSS Directory"?
Also we should add in the wikipage that "OpenBIM" solutions that use the term "Open" as reference of "Interoperability format" only, are not allowed in the list, because the meaning of "Open" for our community is "Open Source".
@Moult@bitacovir What should I be looking out for in a product to be added to the Wiki? Its true that Open Design Alliance have products that are not FOSS, However, the Open IFC Viewer is "Free" to use and registration is not needed.
@iosvarms said: @Moult@bitacovir What should I be looking out for in a product to be added to the Wiki? Its true that Open Design Alliance have products that are not FOSS, However, the Open IFC Viewer is "Free" to use and registration is not needed.
Read the paragraphs of the wiki. We focus on Open Source software, no freeware.
@iosvarms it's a bit tricky and can get a bit technical. Not all OpenSource licenses are suitable for Free/Libre Software. Luckily the Free Software Foundation has a list you can consult. But you're always safe if a program uses one of the licenses already on the software directory. Most projects use a small selection of licenses. If you're unsure just ask.
The conceptual basis of free/libre software is four central freedoms outlined here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
A thorough read of https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Open-Source_Architecture_Community should give you the info you need. But just ask, as Moult notes, it's not always easy to tell as there is "openwashing" going on out there.
https://gradslam.github.io/ for reality capture . someone want to add it, make a page, maybe linking resources about reality capture and let them know?
I've also authored a bit on free software, which is linked to from the homepage, which may be used to help clarify what we mean when we say "free software" from the OSArch perspective: https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Free_software
@paullee I think it is completely different from Meshroom. From my understanding (disclaimer: I have not used either, but I have done photogrammetry before), Meshroom provides photogrammetric reconstruction using the more traditional steps of taking a whole series of unstructured and potentially non-sequential photos, doing feature matching, sparse, and then dense point cloud reconstruction, and then Poisson meshing on top. This is a highly expensive process. This uses techniques like SIFT and SfM, and is similar to apps like COLMAP and the original VSFM.
In contrast, gradslam implements, well, SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping). This is a highly related field to what Meshroom does, but the huge difference is that it all happens in real-time, and there is no sparse to dense cloud, it's just one cloud, and there is also no meshing at this stage. This is the stuff that self-driving cars use to sense their environment.
Comments
It's so nice to see a bit of respect. There's so little of it these days. </end sarcasm>
I'd like to hear about projects that focus on federated workflows / distributed labor and other things relevant to a multi-person workflow. What do we know of and what should be on the directory list? One reason I want to learn more about this is so that we can get some of our test projects / workflows going in a way that looks feasible to other.
@bitacovir looks interesting, however, CPM is an old method
Also, I couldn't find their repo. Where's it?
Parser for EXPRESS files, originally coded to provide type information to the IFC Syntax VSCode extension
https://github.com/AlanRynne/ifc-syntax-express-parser
@bitacovir oh wow the screenshots for ProjeQtor. I thought I could handle busy interfaces... I was wrong. I have zero experience in construction planning, so I don't know if such project management tools are generic and can be applied in AEC. In contrast, I know there are highly specialised tools like Sablono (proprietary) which suggest that there are certainly enough AEC specific features to warrant specialised tools. Is there someone here with experience who can judge whether it should be added to the directory?
@ReD_CoDE cheers! I've added it to the directory.
@Moult personally I have a good feeling to ProjeQtor, its interface is messy, but follows a good idea, however, as I mentioned before about another PM app, CPM approach is out-dated today, but small firms, and some medium firms still use it, because is good enough for those scales
I just want to see their OS repo, and their license type
The project states that the software is well suited for IT projects, but it is totally capable for any kind of project.
https://www.projeqtor.org/en/product-en
The licence is GNU Affero General Public License (the links to the licence are in the paragraphs of the webpage). Anyway here you are: https://www.projeqtor.org/en/product-en/downloads
The source it is shared at Sourceforge (SVN repository is https://svn.code.sf.net/p/projectorria/code and visible at https://sourceforge.net/p/projectorria/code/HEAD/tree/)
https://www.projeqtor.org/en/online/contribution
@bitacovir I see. I'm just cautious that they might be making claims of suitability for an industry they might not fully know the details of.
What do others think? Should we add it? What is your experience in construction planning?
@Moult I think it is ok. We already have in the Software Directory GanttProject and ProjectLibre. They are not focused on Building Industry and I think they are more basic than ProjeQtor. But if you think that it is too far from the AEC field, we can delete it.
@bitacovir cheers! I'm not qualified to know whether it should be there or not, so happy to have it there until someone makes an informed claim otherwise. Thanks for adding!
@Moult @bitacovir I also think there are so few opensource project management tools that we should just add it. In the description we can write that it generic. If we get so many that we need to remove some generic solutions then we can do that.
What about "home automation", "domotics", or "SmartHome". Those ones should be included in the Software Directory?
@bitacovir good question. Now that you mention it that makes good sense if we want to build a strong section on building operations. I guess that would go under https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AEC_Free_Software_directory#Facility_Management
I fear the list might soon be unmanageable. But I guess that's a technical issue we'll just have to fix. For now I've made the tables collapsible (but expanded by default) which helps.
@duncan I've split off software dev tools into its own page. This is because software dev tools are growing very quickly, and it could use some categorisation by itself. Also, this helps to not scare end-users who are looking at the directory.
I also split off proprietary extensions. Acknowledging their existence is helpful, but as a condition of use is to accept non-free software, I wouldn't exactly call them free software and I don't think they really belong on that page. Certainly in the software world people don't usually consider them free software.
Added to the wiki --- Open IFC viewer. A 3D visualization and inspection tool for IFC files from Open Design Alliance [https://openifcviewer.com]
I'm fine with the split, wondered about something similar myself. That observation tough is valid for any windows-only application. The strength of highlighting Free extensions to proprietary software is that people can use them in their workflow now. pyRevit is driving a wedge into anyone who says libre software isn't good enough to be useful. Rhino.Inside is doing the same. Dynamo in it's way also.
@iosvarms are you sure it is open source? I do not see any source, nor do I see any free software license.
@duncan Correct, the observation is indeed valid for any Windows-only application. For that reason I've just moved XBim Xplorer to the "extensions to proprietary software" page. Yeah, I don't mind highlighting them on their own page, and I think we should maintain that page well to help people realise they may already be using open source to produce commercial grade output.
I don't think it is Open Source. We must be careful about the unethical and abusive use of the term "Open" in the name of some products with only marketing intentions (maybe we could call them OpenF*ck).
I have removed it from the wiki. There are a few misleading names that we should watch out for:
I think it's best to simply be aware of these but not mention them anywhere on the wiki. Mentioning them will simply promote them. If we see claims from people that they are open, we should correct them. The AEC journalist Martyn Day recently made the term "openwash", like greenwashing, but for open source. Maybe we can use that term.
Should we change the title of the wiki page from "AEC Free Software directory" to something like "AEC Libre Software Directory", "AEC Open Source Software Directory" or "AEC FLOSS Directory"?
Also we should add in the wikipage that "OpenBIM" solutions that use the term "Open" as reference of "Interoperability format" only, are not allowed in the list, because the meaning of "Open" for our community is "Open Source".
@Moult @bitacovir What should I be looking out for in a product to be added to the Wiki? Its true that Open Design Alliance have products that are not FOSS, However, the Open IFC Viewer is "Free" to use and registration is not needed.
Read the paragraphs of the wiki. We focus on Open Source software, no freeware.
@iosvarms it's a bit tricky and can get a bit technical. Not all OpenSource licenses are suitable for Free/Libre Software. Luckily the Free Software Foundation has a list you can consult. But you're always safe if a program uses one of the licenses already on the software directory. Most projects use a small selection of licenses. If you're unsure just ask.
The conceptual basis of free/libre software is four central freedoms outlined here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
A thorough read of https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Open-Source_Architecture_Community should give you the info you need. But just ask, as Moult notes, it's not always easy to tell as there is "openwashing" going on out there.
One way of looking at this question of licenses is asking oneself "is this about the practical advantages of sharing code, or the ethical consequences of restrictive licenses?". Here are two good references for learning about the differences between the licenses:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences#Approvals
https://gradslam.github.io/ for reality capture . someone want to add it, make a page, maybe linking resources about reality capture and let them know?
Thanks, what is the difference in technology from Meshroom ?
This is in the machine learning field.
I've added gradslam here: https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AEC_Free_Software_directory#Geometry_scanning_and_processing
I've also authored a bit on free software, which is linked to from the homepage, which may be used to help clarify what we mean when we say "free software" from the OSArch perspective: https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Free_software
@paullee I think it is completely different from Meshroom. From my understanding (disclaimer: I have not used either, but I have done photogrammetry before), Meshroom provides photogrammetric reconstruction using the more traditional steps of taking a whole series of unstructured and potentially non-sequential photos, doing feature matching, sparse, and then dense point cloud reconstruction, and then Poisson meshing on top. This is a highly expensive process. This uses techniques like SIFT and SfM, and is similar to apps like COLMAP and the original VSFM.
In contrast, gradslam implements, well, SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping). This is a highly related field to what Meshroom does, but the huge difference is that it all happens in real-time, and there is no sparse to dense cloud, it's just one cloud, and there is also no meshing at this stage. This is the stuff that self-driving cars use to sense their environment.
I hope I got that right :)
Thanks Bitacovir and Moult :)
I was reading https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html and I think we need to go over and re-check all GPL-based licenses to see if they are "only" or "or later". Thoughts?