What does a freelancing client pay for for an EA in exp format or for open source code?

New comment
 
.
 
I pay for the sources, I do not need a compiled version. And before ordering, sometimes, just in case, I clarify this point if I work with a new performer. I had one case where the performer did not want to give the code, but it is rather an exception and I found him not through the service.
 

I've ordered nine jobs myself and I had no idea anyone would refuse to give me an open code.

I'm not ready to pay for a pig in a poke.

Everyone knows what a closed code is. There can be anything inside it, up to and including trading restrictions for a certain period of time .

He wants to sell me my own code for more money.

 

In reality -- the situation is not as straightforward as one would like it to be.

1. Whether delivery is in source code or compiled form is a subject of the terms of reference.

The vast majority of developers, understanding that delivery should be in open source, even write in their warranties that the delivery is always in open source.

2. The Freelance rules don't stipulate that.

But I think that when you submit to Arbitration -- look at the value of the agreement of $10 -- and stupidly terminate the agreement in favor of the customer.

So the recommendation is:

-- if the developer doesn't want to give in the source code -- go to Arbitration and Arbitration will sort it out.

-- for the future -- always specify the type of delivery in the ToR.

 
Andrey F. Zelinsky:


The funny thing is that he wants to sell me an open code separately))))Opencode is a commodity that is given in exchange for a fee, by comparison there is a live person and there is his shadow ...EXP is only a shadow .
 

To me, the situation is ambiguous.

For example, an EA may use service functions from the developer's internal library, which "drag along" so much that the entire library must be given to compile. And the developer is not interested in that.

Therefore, it is up to you.

 
George Merts:

To me, the situation is ambiguous.

Let's say, an EA may use service functions from the developer's internal library, which "pulls" so much that the entire library must be given to compile. And the developer is not interested in that.

Therefore, it is up to you.

There is nothing of that kind...
 
this is the reply I received

"Customer, the provision of source code should have been stipulated in the TOR in advance. The developer has provided you with a compiled solution.

If you have no objections to the functionality, we suggest you accept the work within 2 days. Otherwise the work will be completed involuntarily.

 
I have a question: "Do you guarantee that this code will not have any problems or restrictions when working on a real account? And if the program is at fault, will you compensate me for any losses on a real account?

Why didn't the user tell me from the start that he was not going to give me the open code? He just deliberately omitted it.
 
azfaraon:
this is the response I received

"Customer, the provision of source code should have been stipulated in the TOR in advance. The developer has provided you with a compiled solution.

If you have no objections to the functionality, we suggest you accept the work within 2 days. Otherwise the work will be completed involuntarily.

If the work is forcibly completed in favor of the Developer, you will not be able to leave feedback.

Invite the Developer to provide the source code and tell them that if they don't, you will leave negative feedback.

If the Developer refuses then accept the work and leave negative feedback.

This is the only thing you can do.

The arbitration's response is exhaustive. And the arbitrator is right. Providing the full TOR is the responsibility of the Client.

It was explained to you above that the situation is not clear-cut. There is no mandatory requirement to provide the source code. It is the subject of the TOR.

 
Andrey F. Zelinsky:

If the work is completed forcibly in favour of the Developer, you will not be able to leave feedback.

Invite the Developer to provide the source code and tell them that if they do not, you will leave negative feedback.

If the Developer refuses then accept the work and leave negative feedback.

This is the only thing you can do.

The arbitration's response is exhaustive. And the arbitrator is right. Providing the full TOR is the responsibility of the Client.

It was explained to you above that the situation is not clear-cut. There is no mandatory requirement to provide the source code. It is subject to the terms of the TOR.

And how can I ever prove to anyone that this is my EA if even I don't have the source code? Isn't the one who pays for the EA the owner of it?
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
New comment