@duncan said:
I agree that having a chat is good, @Moult a wiki is a great thing, but it is not self-organizing. A disorganized wiki is a pain in the arse to maintain and close to useless for anyone who doesn't remember where things are. A wiki is like a big warehouse with no shelves and no system. Yes, there's space for a lot of stuff, but no-one can find it.
I think that tide up a wiki is also a part of the collaborative work. Some people create content, other people make order. A good practice is to write in the forum when you are creating content in the wiki.
@bitacovir I've been wanting to do that for ages as well but haven't quite worked out how to do it or what the criteria should be. It's a really interesting topic. Maybe you could start a page with what you have already found including a description of how you define Open Source Building Systems. For example is it enough if the drawings are in the commons? If you want to call them 'open source' then the files themselves have to be available and under a relevant license. So it's not enough that they're modular and community developed. And if the file is freely available but in a closed format ... that's really not good enough either.
I don't feel like a guy who is in charge of creating the definitions. I think on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-design_movement
There is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware Both have good theoretical base that should be good to apply on construction industry.
For cliphut for example I find no indication at all that there is anything open about what they're doing. What they're doing is cool, but I have trouble seeing what it has to do with our project.
Indeed some of these cases are more for study and inspiration rather than active promotion. Cliphut stated in the PDF presentation the "Open Source" factor in their design. But they have not delivered or shared any design documentation, yet. Even they could be no active anymore. But I was thinking in a wiki with a research approach about cases like this, because they could be references for new ideas.
The opensource wood project seems much more open, but it looks like they're about sharing knowledge - again great. But what does it have to do with our projects of bringing more opensource/libre software to AEC? The First three are very relevant since they bring everything together: the idea, the method, the openness and the software. But since I never found more than those three examples when I went looking (and I looked quite hard) I lost interest. In some ways a list of open source building systems would be more a project for @marcin_ose and OSE to showcase. But OSE projects and Wikihouse are the only projects I know of - oh actually @theoryshaw and OpeningDesign projects would also be in this category if we focus on "openness" of projects rather than them being a "system".
Ok. I had not researched more about other examples. I understand that the open source topic is still "immature" as implementation in the construction area. Also, maybe is good idea to open a wiki page in the OSE rather than in this wiki. That way it could get more attention of "builders users".