AutoCAD 2007 DWG looks like bad ju-ju.
I just got a heads up on the new AutoCAD 2007 DWG file format.
It looks pretty grim
You may remember that, in 2003, when Autodesk introduced AutoCAD 2004, I said that its DWG format used encrypted headers. Autodesk's management called me names, and said I was wrong. I published the encryption algorithm. And they have conveniently chosen not to comment on it anymore.
A while back, when looking at AutoCAD's DWGCHECK function, I found out that, in addition to the header encryption, AutoCAD 2004's DWG format includes a Blowfish encrypted digital signature that is not user accessible. Think of it like a lock, for which Autodesk (and not the user) holds the key. It could easily be used to lock-out DWG files created by third-party programs. Autodesk says they're not doing this -- but then, they said there was no encryption in the 2004 DWG format -- a claim that they've now backed-off from.
With the AutoCAD 2007 format, the encryption appears to be an even bigger mess. I don't have the beta version of AutoCAD 2007, however a reputable someone gave me a heads-up. (No -- I never even asked anyone about it. Someone just thought I ought to know. I'm fastidious as hell about not violating Autodesk's license agreements -- but, in this case, I'm not bound by any restrictions on passing along information on AutoCAD 2007.)
My understanding is that the basic encryption in the headers has been replaced with a more advanced encryption algorithm. I learned enough technical information about what's in this algorithm to conclude that it could be reverse-engineered -- except that doing so would require stepping through AutoCAD's code with a debugger. That's called "reverse engineering" -- and, since AutoCAD 2004 came out, Autodesk has made its end-user license agreement much more restrictive -- to the point where reverse-engineering is prohibited.
Beyond this, the AutoCAD EULA now includes a "trade secret" clause, which restricts users from even describing how the product works. By agreeing to the AutoCAD EULA (which we'd have to do to use AutoCAD to update our libraries to handle the 2007 DWG format), we'd be constrained from doing what is required to provide that support. Read the EULA yourself -- there's a copy over in my Software Licensing Blog... at least, until Autodesk tells me that having it there is a violation of their intellectual property rights. (Don't laugh -- if you read the EULA at face value, they could make that claim.)
What's the bottom line here? Based on what I know now, I don't think the Open Design Alliance can legally provide support for the AutoCAD 2007 file format. By all appearances, Autodesk has got it technically and legally locked up, to where users will only be able to access DWG 2007 files with Autodesk software. Think of it like a tax: You have to pay Autodesk for the right to access your DWG 2007 files. I'm more than a little concerned about this -- and if you are thinking about upgrading to the new version of AutoCAD when it comes out (about March 15), you ought to be concerned too.
I'm going to continue to look at this situation, and see if there are any ways around it. But I suspect that there will be no easy solutions. It's pretty sad that, when even Microsoft is recognizing the importance of open data formats, Autodesk has gone in the complete opposite direction.
Evan Yares
in Interoperability, Licensing
|
21 Comments
|
3 References
References (3)
-
Response: New file format for AutoCAD 2007The site http://www.dotsoft.com speculates that AutoCAD 2007 could use a new file format, the 2007 format. -
Response: AutoCAD 2007 Format: Locked?Evan Yares, lead guru at the Open Design Alliance, the guys who make libraries that read and write CAD formats like DWG, posts on his blog that the new version of AutoCAD due soon may be an Autodesk only deal.He notes that "locks" in the file format a
-
Response: Closed, and open, and better, oh my!I have a love/hate relationship with Autodesk. One on hand, I love their MapGuide product . On the other hand, I hate the DWG file format. With each release, I have to worry about whether I�ll be able make Engineering�s data available...
Reader Comments (21)
"3.2.2 Reverse Engineering. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software."
is countered by this one:
"3.2.10 Exceptions from Prohibitions. The prohibitions contained in this Section 3.2 shall not apply to actions that are expressly authorized under mandatory law (including, but not limited, to actions authorized under the fair use doctrine in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act and laws implementing EC Directive 91/250 on the legal protection of computer programs) provided that You may not exercise any rights arising under such mandatory laws unless and until You have given thirty (30) days prior written notice to Autodesk to allow Autodesk, at its sole discretion, to provide an alternative remedy, e.g., information necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created program with the Software."
which leads us to this one:
"9.4 Severability. If and to the extent any provision of this Agreement is held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable in whole or in part under applicable law, such provision or such portion thereof shall be ineffective as to the jurisdiction in which it is illegal, invalid, or unenforceable to the extent of its illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability and shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary to conform to applicable law so as to give the maximum effect to the intent of the parties. The illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability of such provision in that jurisdiction shall not in any way affect the legality, validity, or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement in any other jurisdiction."
I consider 3.2.2 unenforceable in your case, and 3.2.10 indicates that Autodesk already knows that it is unenforceable. So, according to 9.4, the EULA can be "deemed modified", i.e. you are entitled to treat the EULA as if the unenforceable section does not exist.
In summary, go ahead and do your reverse engineering, because Autodesk is NOT ALLOWED to prevent it, as long as you are doing it for interoperability, which is clearly the case.
Autodesk may or may not have any legal basis in requiring 30 days notice, but I suggest you get your written notice in anyway. What do you think are the chances of Autodesk providing you the information necessary during that 30 day perod?
Evan Replies:
EULAs are a real minefield these days. Though the anti-reverse-engineering clauses in the Autodesk EULA would seem to be unenforceable, a recent court case, Blizzard v. BnetD, went the other way.
Section 3.2.10 of the EULA uses a few troubling words, including "expressly" and mandatory." If you look at 17 USC § 107 (the copyright act), it doesn't provide express authorization for reverse-engineering. Further, 17 USC § 1201(f) (the portion of the DMCA dealing with reverse-engineering) only relats to circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to a particular portion of a program. AutoCAD has no such technological measures (that is, the program itself is not encrypted.)
In short, section 3.2.10 of the EULA (at least, the version for AutoCAD 2006) would appear to be carefully written to circumvent the US government's public policy allowing reverse engineering.
As for EC Directive 91/250 Article 6 would seem to offer more hope. I'm not in Europe, though. Some of the Open Design Alliance's member companies are.
I do have the beta of AutoCAD 2007 and I had commented in CADzette about my concern on the new dwg format. I had guessed that it was because of the new 3D kernel and the need to support that. It never occurred to me that Autodesk might have more nefarious goals in mind.
If it's OK with you I am going to point my readers towards your blog and this article as I think it is extremely important for users to be aware.
Users will still be able to set their SaveAs setting to AutoCAD 2000 to allow their drawings to work with other software. I have all the users in my company do that as a rule of thumb.
Any comment on Bentley's new use of the 2004 Select Agreement (Sec. 5.05.a,7.04) to force users to give up rights to perpetual licenses if they drop Select.
Plenty of dirty play to go around.
Scott
Evan Replies:
Last year, I spoke at the BE Conference, and said mean things about almost all CAD vendors' licensing policies -- even Bentley. To Bentley's great credit, they're willing to stand face-to-face, and discuss issues with me. And, even when we disagree, we agree to do so. They've never tried to stab me in the back.
I find that Bentley generally is customer-centric, focusing on delivering high-value, but not necessarily low price. Like Dassault, PTC, and UGS, they can be unfairly agressive in their customer agreements -- I suppose because customers with significant investments in their software are unlikely to wholesale change. My sense in this case is that Bentley is trying to position software as a service, so I can see some logic in their policy. Do I like it? Hell no. But I think public discussion of issues is a good thing, and I'd be interested to hear what Bentley has to say.
Incidentally, I just read the Autodesk subcription agreement, and it does the same thing -- turns your perpetual license into an annual subscription. If you let it lapse, you lose all rights to use any of the software covered under it.
Evan Replies:
You're not over-reacting. As for viable alternatives -- that's why the Open Design Alliance exists.
Evan Replies:
DWGgateway, from SolidWorks, is a start in this direction. The Open Design Alliance actually doesn't create applications, or end-user products. We create component libraries that are used by every significant CAD company in the world (including Autodesk -- though, unlike other CAD vendors, their use of our libraries is without our permission, without license from us, and against our wishes.)
In any case, in the last week, a significant number of people have talked to me about the Open Design Alliance creating an enhanced open DWG format, rather like the one you're suggesting. We could do it (after all, who knows more about CAD file formats than the Open Design Alliance and its members? One of our members *invented* DWG.) The question is whether this is the best investment of our resources. If you have an opinion, drop me an email.
The new format is needed, many changes and new commands.
Tell me one thing, how I'm need spent to use Open Design Alliance Libraries?
Thx.
Evan Replies:
Certainly, the new format is needed. However, there is a difference between making changes that benefit users, and making changes that do not benefit users, but only serve to frustrate interoperability.
In the past, Autodesk has confused the issue. They will likely do so again.
Regarding the cost of the Open Design Alliance libraries -- they are free for personal use. The information is on the opendesign.com web site.
David William Edwards
Evan Replies:
Of course, Massachusetts was the first state to do this -- much to Microsoft's chagrin. Norway is moving in a similar direction, and the EU's recent action against Microsoft has features that are closely related to the open format issue.
In terms of US-based initiatives, several branches of the federal government are quite concerned about the issue of encrypted proprietary file formats. I've spoken to a few that are interested in having the Alliance provide a DWG validator, that will verify that a DWG file doesn't include encrypted or undocumented constructs.
Oddly, Autodesk has chosen to call their flavor of DWG, which is undocumented and contains encrypted data structures "Trusted DWG." Quoting from Wikipedia (regarding the word "trusted" in the context of computing), "In this technical sense, "trusted" does not necessarily mean the same as "trustworthy" from a user's perspective. Rather, it means that it can be trusted more fully to follow its intended programming with a lower possibility of inappropriate activities occurring that are forbidden by its designers and other software writers."
I don't know if AutoCAD's DWG lives up to that standard any more than the Open Design Alliance's DWG does. Based on what users have told us, and on Autodesk's unwillingness to provide any information on specific problems with DWG files from non-Autodesk products, I'd guess that Autodesk's claims are specious marketing hype.
(And... to answer your question... drop me an email, and I'll tell you about it.)
We now have confirmation that AutoCAD 2007 has destroyed that interoperability dream for the moment. One consultant who has upgraded to 2007 cannot open a DWG file that I exported from a MS/J file in V8-2004.
My company, unfortunately, upgrades at the speed of obsolescense, so unless: 1) Bentley already has XMv2 ready to export to the new DWG format and 2) my company skips over two versions to get that 'new' version, we are stuck.
Thank you, Autodesk, for protecting your empire! Hopefully, people will tire of their extreme 'protectionist' measures and force them to play nicer with everyone.
Evan Replies:
If you ever have a DWG file, no matter what the source, that is a problem with any program that reads DWG files (including AutoCAD), I want to know about it, and find a solution to the problem. Send me the file, along with any information you have on the problem, and the program that wrote the file. I can't give guarantees, but interoperability is meaningless if it's unreliable.
Imagine an equipment buyer for a company telling the boss, the new equipment I just purchased will only run for one year! Now see that guy with his pink slip, after the boss asked why didn't you spend the money on equipment (assets) that would last at least as long as the IRS allows for depreciation on that equipment. I have been using both companies products since 1985, and the fact is that neither company has issued a version of their product that one had to have the instant it was released.
Recntly all of that has changed, at least as far as Autodesks' products are concerned. With 07 version comes the third in a series of rapidly altered DWG formats. The format changes have been argued as required to provide encreased functionality. The reality is the format changes have been required to force users to retire their assets before the end of their normal usefull life because of interoperablity issues. Recently I have taken to calling these rapid releases and forced upgrades the most succesful virus ever written. The upgrade virus is so good users (subscribers) willingly install it themselves.
The subscription program is a great revenue stream generator; which is great if you own stock in Autodesk. The subscription program is a great delivery mechanism for the Upgrade Virus. The subscription program is not for the good of the customer or your business as it reduces your assets to a cost item. The end users of Autodesks products are partly to blame for this sad state of affairs, they also have the power to regain some control. Cancel your subscription, and do not renew it. Take back the financial control and force Autodesk to deliver a more thoroughly tested, and significantly improved product to the marketplace. The only way this will happen is if the majority of users do not sign-on to the subscription program, and do not upgrade to this latest version of the Upgrade Virus. Personally I'm willing to wait 2-3 years between upgrades, if the product is improved and fully functional as advertised.
I am not willing to give Autodesk my money today for the promise of an improved product in the future; so far they haven't delivered on this promise. And as they already have the subscribers money in-hand they have no free market pressures to deliver a better product.
The answer to my question (can a Microstation created dwg still be read in AutoCAD 2007) was "No problem". So what is going on here? I have multiple platforms within the company and architects that we work with on multiple platforms as well, I cannot afford updating to 2007 if that will block communication?
Or did I misunderstand something here?
It is a fallacy to believe that the best software should also be the most expensive. Ten years ago there were no real alternatives. Things have changed. Of course it is difficult to discard decades of investment in expertise built on a particular system. But when a software producer starts to exploit that commitment it is imperative for professionals to start considering their options.
I don't buy the argument that I will not be competitive if I don't continue to use Big Brother's software. How competitive can I be if I use the same system as everybody else? Competitiveness comes from building customised workflows that facilitate the particular design ethos of your company. Instead of spending a fortune on the next round of expensive upgrades, smart companies should start to invest in customised workflows. And those could be built on a variety of alternative technologies. Upgrading software is a stupid way of ensuring interoperability. There are other options.
Of course it will not be easy or inexpensive in terms of retraining and implementation. That's the reason why Big Brother can keep you locked into using his software. But for those who can liberate themselves from this situation there lie real long term benefits. Smaller companies have real opportunities now to embrace alternative workflows that will make them more agile and attractive in the marketplace.
Take the trouble to research your alternatives. And don't make the mistake of trying to find a single solution that will do everything. Instead find component applications that complement the way your organisation works. Employ a competent expert or programmer to tie these together with the primary design software component. Spend the money on training not on the tools. You will be surprised at what could be achieved.