Proprietary software and FOSS

I want to hear what people think about supporting opensource initiatives around proprietary commercial solutions. I'm thinking for example of pyRevit, Dynamo for Revit and IFC for Revit. I think can should include them in our community.
I also think it's important that we clearly state our values (I'm working on that) without in any way closing doors to all and any collaboration with proprietary solutions. I know this is controversial in some circles but I believe that it is a simple question of making progress where ever we can.
I can imagine proprietary software pointing to open source solutions in areas they don't want to enter but in order to fill out their product stack without pointing to competitors.
Imagine for example if many opensource addins to proprietary software began linking up and making a shared effort. Maybe even pointing toward a shared resource and community (now who could that be?)

Comments

  • I don't mind including them, so people are aware on how much proprietary software "leans" on FOSS, but I am against personally investing time and effort into them. I don't see any reason to invest time to prop up a proprietary black box which I need to constantly depend on them for my relevance.

    If somebody in this community wants to take up the initiative to include them, I would not stop them of course, as that is the nature of open source, but I would advise them to perhaps start on the Wiki, and clearly segregate them from the full stack FOSS solutions, and put up an appropriate disclaimer.

  • edited May 13

    FOSS projects for FOSS solutions have the benefits of extending, diversifying and to make stronger the number of alternatives for the whole universe of users and industry. An ecosystem of FOSS projects around Revit is only good for Revit's users and Revit itself. It is not a bad thing, but the question is... what is your goal? A group of users or an industry? (Also, I've heard that some companies have requests or strict conditions if you want access to their product's API's).

    Moult
  • edited May 13

    Also, considering that Autodesk have a history of stealing the ideas of FOSS extensions to their proprietary apps, I see no reason to support them. Also, things like Autodesk Forge have nasty legal fine print that say that whatever you build with Forge becomes Autodesk property.

    My priority from bad to good:

    1. Pure proprietary
    2. FOSS on top of proprietary
    3. Proprietary on top of FOSS
    4. Pure FOSS
  • edited May 13

    @duncan said:
    I want to hear what people think about supporting opensource initiatives around proprietary commercial solutions. I'm thinking for example of pyRevit, Dynamo for Revit and IFC for Revit. I think can should include them in our community.

    I am creator and maintainer of pyRevitMEP (extension for pyRevit) and I am already here :-) (although development on pyRevitMEP has slowed down last years as I am trying to drop Revit)
    I try to advertise BlenderBIM to Ehsan Iran-Nejad (creator and maintainer of pyRevit) and community. Interest is awaken. Many of them are aware of FreeCAD and BlenderBIM.

    I think the best way to advertise FOSS software to them is to prove that FOSS has a decent workflow on real world projects. As they made bridges enhancing over time between Rhino and Revit, they will make bridge to FOSS. These bridges are essentials to help users not being trapped in a software and these bridges will not be made by Autodesk.
    Geometry Gym made many things toward interoperability and proof of concept eg. for parametric IFC objects.

    Can you define further what you mean by «supporting» ? In which ways you think of supporting them ?

  • I think these FOSS projects around proprietary software are cool and welcome, if only because they create a "bridge" for people to come to the good side of the force (poke @Cyril ;) ). After all, if we develop stuff that works on Windows, we also develop things that depend on proprietary software. That might not be the ideal world, but not such a bad thing in itself, it brings users and visibility and, as any other FOSS project, that's precious shared knowledge.
    Also a very big part of BIM is connectivity. In that sense, these "in-between" projects play a very important part too

  • Can you define further what you mean by «supporting» ? In which ways you think of supporting them ?

    I just mean in terms of how we talk about them and consider them. In some places (think FSF of which I am a member) they are in bed with the enemy. Good to hear that we are talking about 'bridges'.

  • Can someone take a look at https://topologic.app/software/ and see if it should be added? I couldn't quite work it out.

  • @duncan the topologic app looks OK licensing-wise, but the wording says "we will release as open-source...", so I'm not sure if it has happened yet. Can you find a repository?

  • @Moult said:
    @duncan the topologic app looks OK licensing-wise, but the wording says "we will release as open-source...", so I'm not sure if it has happened yet. Can you find a repository?

    I've written to them

    Moult
  • edited May 14

    Can someone take a look at https://topologic.app/software/ and see if it should be added? I couldn't quite work it out.

    This is a project from Cardiff University lead by Prof. Wassim Jabi, so has some features for topology optimization

  • they've released it under agpl but there's a strange eula which goes against the agpl and says you cant share the source code of the compiled version. is that okay under agpl?

  • This is an interesting question. I use grasshopper heavily and although it's tied around Rhino, a paid software, the nature of sharing information, scripts, helping other users, and releasing plugins is quite open source in its behaviour, if not EULA.

    Then there is the universe of paid blender addons, as they are all required to be GPL, but everyone buys them to support the devs.

    I guess it's not 100% percent black and white ;)

  • @duncan said:
    they've released it under agpl but there's a strange eula which goes against the agpl and says you cant share the source code of the compiled version. is that okay under agpl?

    I think it's ok to do that, in any case the code is released under agpl here so anyone can download it and compile it for himself

  • @dimitar said:
    Then there is the universe of paid blender addons, as they are all required to be GPL, but everyone buys them to support the devs.

    I don't think they have to be GPL as they are not modifying blender's source code

  • edited May 14

    From the website it says the EULA only applies if you want to use the binary release with Dynamo, BHoM, or Grasshopper.

    You have the choice to use the source code yourself with no EULA or fees under AGPL. You can also build open-source software with no EULA or fees under AGPL. The only time AGPL doesn't apply is under proprietary software, where you have to choose another model. This is not a contradiction, as AGPL is a very strongly copylefted license.

    This sounds very similar to the Qt licensing model, which is valid open-source.

    So long as somebody can post a link to their codebase, I vote for including them as FOSS and adding them to the directory.

  • Agreed it should be added ... the repo is this https://github.com/NonManifoldTopology/Topologic
    I will add it now (under CAD / BIM Design Development I guess).
    I will also be adding Gmsh in the same category and blastFoam in the simulation category

    duncan
  • @Jesusbill said:
    I don't think they have to be GPL as they are not modifying blender's source code

    They must adopt the Blender License:
    https://www.blender.org/about/license/

    Blender’s Python API is an integral part of the software, used to define the user interface or develop tools for example. The GNU GPL license therefore requires that such scripts (if published) are being shared under a GPL compatible license. You are free to sell such scripts, but the sales then is restricted to the download service itself. Your customers will receive the script under the same license (GPL), with the same free conditions as everyone has for Blender.

    Cyril
  • Ok thanks for the clarification @bitacovir , my bad

Sign In or Register to comment.