What does a freelancing client pay for for an EA in exp format or for open source code? - page 7

New comment
 

It has to be:


 
Vladimir Suschenko:
The Client pays for what he orders. In freelance the order is in the form of the TOR. Who and what he meant by it, but did not say and did not put in the TOR - it is not important.
There is no need to pump the "masses on the righteous anger" towards the artist, using the device substituting the concepts - in this case there is a far-fetched emphasis on what a rascal performer, "I gave him my code, and the developer does not want to give me the code after the completion, offering to pay extra for my own code! What do we have in reality? The customer still has the customer's code in its original form (not improved)? - It remained, no one took it away. That is, the developer just doesn't want to show the improvements he made (maybe he used some of his original developments) for free - if it was not stipulated otherwise when ordering, then what the developer is wrong? The only thing I can add is that the developer would be wrong to sell the modified code without the consent of the owner of the original source code..., but that's not what we're talking about here.

Programming is a craft.

The advisor's algorithm is a creative activity - intellectual property.

The contractor generally has to destroy all code after the job is done, unless the client has given his consent to the storage or use of his intellectual property.

 
Freelancers should take into account in my opinion that some of the terms of the job are standard, i.e. the contractor is obliged to: destroy the code, not sell the final product, transfer the source code and all rights! To the Client, for which he actually pays. It is necessary because the contractor is a specialist and the client needs help in some issues, so that he did not screw up the terms of reference. This way a lot of questions can be answered and such disputes can be avoided prematurely, i.e. before they arise.
 
-Aleks-:

Programming is a craft....

Don't be primitivistic.
As in any creative activity, there can be craftsmen and there can be masters with a capital letter. True, there are far fewer true masters than craftsmen, and the work of a master (if recognized) is not affordable to everyone.
-Aleks-:

...The contractor must destroy all code after completing the work, unless the client has given his consent to the storage or use of his intellectual property.

Either it must be specified in the order, or governed by the rules (at least even the rules of freelancing). What was stipulated in the TOR, I do not know, in the rules of freelancing such a requirement for the performer is not. So it's somehow not clear from what this "The executor ..... must... ".
 
Did the person order the "EA code" or did he askyou to "write the EA"? If the code, then he has the right to demand the source code, if the second, then of course, formally, the executor may do so without giving the source code. If the customer sharifs in the code - he will write it himself. And the refusal to give source code can really mean blackmail and hidden restrictions that may come out in the future. Don't know how they work together - maybe the executor wants revenge. Humanly speaking, the creator of the topic is right - he is not expressing anything but concern here and that's fine. So I think, as a decent person he should announce the name of the programmer, so as to warn other decent customers.
 
Vladimir Suschenko:
Don't be primitive.
As in any kind of creative activity, there can be craftsmen in programming, and there can be Masters with a capital letter. True, there are far fewer true masters than craftsmen, and the work of a master (if acknowledged) is not affordable to everyone.
Either it must be specified in the order, or governed by the rules (at least even the rules of freelancing). What was stipulated in the TOR, I do not know, in the rules of freelancing such a requirement for the performer is not. So it's somehow not clear from what this "The executor ..... must... ".

I justify my position on the law of any civilised country - there are established traditions (customs of business) which are accepted by default, unless otherwise specified.

In addition, in many developed countries, intellectual property is protected by law, and the code itself is not intellectual property, it merely expresses the thoughts of the author of the TK.

Ideas to express thoughts in code are limited to the programming language, to form and express them correctly is symbolic of the programmer's professionalism, but not his creative gift.

 
-Aleks-:

Ideas to express thoughts in code are limited to the programming language, to form and express them correctly is symbolic of a programmer's professionalism

From this phrase you can estimate how difficult it is for a thinker to express his thoughts according to the rules even of a common native language, let alone program language. You've spent years at school learning how to form sentences and practicing every day, but it's still a mess. And you still think that it's a purely mechanical procedure to not only understand, but also formalize the thoughts of these creators to the point where they can already be programmed? Doesn't add up.

symbolises the professionalism of the programmer, but not his creative gift.

That is directors, actors, soloists/vocalists with conductors and the rest of Rostropovich - pure craftsmanship, everything by notes and scripts

to shape and express them correctly is symbolic of a programmer's professionalism.

A programmer learns to program, and linguistic analysis, advanced abstract thinking, understanding of the subject (trading) at a level deeper than the average trader is not programming. But without this, most of the thinkers are difficult to understand. That is, a programmer writes notes and plays them for this creative person, and when it turns out that a great idea is a failure, he will be punished - wrongly written, badly sung, does not correspond to the creative level of think-tanker :)

 
Alexander Puzanov:

You can judge from this phrase how difficult it is for a thinker to express his thought according to the rules of even the usual native language, let alone software. You've been learning how many years of sentence construction at school + practicing every day, but it still comes out wrong. And you still think that it's a purely mechanical procedure to not only understand, but also formalize the thoughts of these creators to the point where they can already be programmed? Doesn't add up.

Yes - I am not a writer, my language is bony and not beautiful, but I am a creator and maker, my path is thorny and unsightly.

Perhaps the sentence I wrote above proves that my brain is not working efficiently enough in the morning. However, I didn't claim to be fluent in the language.

I don't understand why the proud and dignified words 'craft' and 'professionalism' offend you.

Programming is hard highly intellectual work, but it is not a creative activity in itself and does not create something new, it merely describes thoughts already formed.

 
Thinking about code organisation is partly a creative activity, but no more so than any other creative component in any profession.
 

The very fact that there are defenders of the transfer of only a compiled file is astounding. Imagine yourself as a customer. Do you really need this compiled file? The whole point of the service is around the source code.

Dull to understand the concepts: execution of development work to order (means the transfer of source code) and compiled file.

When you give a compiled file, it is more like selling software, with resulting requirements - at least 5 years to ensure the availability of the program. The market is designed that way if there is a sale, so it's not so easy to remove something from the market. If here in freelancing, arbitration decided so in favour of the contractor, it begs the question - is the service going to keep the software running for the next 5 years?

1234567891011121314...26
New comment