Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like CSI is asking MasterFormat users to purchase a license. I looked it up and my license would be $1,250 a year!
You all might be interested in this LinkedIn conversation. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brian-payne-5646565_it-brings-me-no-joy-to-write-this-but-i-activity-7425735519898210304-8JfY?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAAD8WJwBTj4qZnl5Lcg2jlcqlS_jngc9E2o
Please stand by. Not everything is as it seems. CSI will provide information around 5 PM EST today.
Sundquist posted on CSI:
"First let me say, I appreciate everyone’s passion for CSI and just like you I want what is best for our association. In short no, CSI’s intent is not to charge individuals simply to write project specification.
We had plan to launch our update this coming Friday and unfortunately a test page was found and not clarified with us prior to putting inaccurate information on social media. So please, I kindly ask that all refrain from anymore speculation until you have had a chance to review the final product.
I have done my best to outreach today, but like each of you I have a day job so it’s hard to get to all, so I apologize if you know me and I did not contact you prior to reading this.
More to come and most importantly, I do Thank You for your support of CSI!"
This is not “information”. I don’t know any more now than I did before 5 PM EST today.
Here is what I posted on LinkedIn:
To add to William Sundquist’s responses to Brian’s post, CSI states that its intent is not to charge individual specifiers simply to write project specifications. Using numbers and titles from CSI-copyrighted works within your own work products to document and deliver construction projects is considered normal project use and not subject to licensing. More information will be available in Friday’s announcement.
The discussion of MasterFormat licensing has exposed a more fundamental issue rampant within CSI: a seriously dissatisfied membership.
One can see examples not just from posts on LinkedIn and other forums but also from face-to-face discussions with CSI colleagues. There is a rampant distrust of leadership at the National level. Whether that distrust is deserved or not, it exists. Making incomplete information public then rescinding it, whether an innocent mistake or not, was the spark that led to this discussion. And issuing an explanation from an impersonal CSI HQ rather under the byline of a known CSI leader only added fuel to the fire.
On the CSI website, Cam Featherstonhaugh expresses disappointment at the tenor of the conversation. We should start with the assumption that the professionals who take time from their busy days to post their concerns do so not with the intent of pouncing or piling on; they are genuinely concerned with the health of our organization. They understand the value of our services and programs, and most have a profound appreciation for the people who came before us to create those programs and this organization. If the CSI forum is not the place for members to express opposing views and ask questions, then where?
Regardless of what shows up on the website on Friday, I hope it will ameliorate the concerns about licensing MasterFormat. Thats the easy part of the problem. Recovering lost trust will be much harder.
Often in life, incidents occur, statements are made, and I really have no way to accurately express everything I feel.
That is when George Everding steps forward.
Thank you, George.
Ron
Ron, thanks for your kind words.
Always happy to be the Charlie McCarthy to your Edgar Bergen! (Only the other Boomers will appreciate that comment!)
LOL, I have $12,600 reasons to say no to this.
Brian:
I wasn’t lied to.
You need a license for the “CSI Dynamics Standards” tool–not for MasterFormat.
The End-User License Agreement (EULA) for MasterFormat does not change, and you can use MasterFormat for your specifications just as you have done for the past 50+ years.
This isn’t any different than purchasing any other product that incorporates MasterFormat (or any CSI standard) into its system (Specpoint, SpecLink, Procore, etc.).
I hope CSI members will have access to this tool as a member benefit, either free or at a significantly reduced rate.
Ron, that’s not what the text above says. Of course I would need a license to the software to use the software. Why would I need a license to CSI Dynamic Standards if I want to organize my Revit template content by MasterFormat numbers and titles?
I don’t need CSI Dynamic Standard for anything.
Please don’t tell me that CSI thinks that rather than charging a license fee to use MasterFormat, they think they can force us to buy a “software platform” that includes MasterFormat to use it.
Ron-
How much CSI has invested in developing and maintaining Crosswalk? How many companies have purchased and are using Crosswalk? What king of feedback has been given about the efficacy of Crosswalk in real world applications?
I’ve been unable to find the answers to these questions and it causes me to wonder if this whole new licensing effort isn’t just to force feed a successful money stream into an unsuccessful app.
Im looking for two things: one of which I expect well receive, the other not so much.
One: a clear explanation of the licensing process, under what conditions will a licensing fee be charged, and exactly for what. And under what conditions the fee will not be charged.
And two: Why is this trip necessary? What problems existed that this new process is intended to solve? What other potential solutions were considered, and why was this specific solution chosen? How does this new process benefit CSI members, and current users of MasterFormat? In clear and concise language, please, and not marketing doublespeak.
If you think this is unfair, please consider my alternative platform.
Did you do any testing on this site?
The Initiate Wire Transfer button does nothing!
LOL
@Matthew Jarsky: you are probably looking at the beta version.
@Juste, that’s hilarious. Thank you for doing that.