What does a freelancing client pay for for an EA in exp format or for open source code? - page 9
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
And by the way, those who wrote that the developer allegedly uses his chips and developments in the works.
So it's the customer's fault, isn't it?
;-) In reality, it becomes uninteresting to read any thread as soon as the quarrel starts
It doesn't matter who starts it
everyone has long forgotten what the topic was about
they start finding out who said what to whom in 1930 ... or back on the MQL4 forum
all have long forgotten about the author of the thread - and his problems.
a lot of questions remain unanswered, including in a shit fight
they start clinging to certain phrases
no one can or will refute or prove anything
all think they are super experts - on copyright or other issues without even knowing those with whom they quarrel
everybody thinks they know best and understand how to write codes
start pecking at each other, showing their own image as saint and infallible
It's not interesting - get lost!
Yes,
the doer is a craftsman
the client is the artist, the creator.
Exactly. The craftsman performs the client's work in the way he was able to understand it. If it did not turn out the way the client wanted, then either he is to blame (he could not articulate his vision) or the doer (he could not understand the client). The doer should not "think out", try to make it better, embellish the order, because it will not come out exactly as the client wanted, but the way the doer would like to see. The executor must not show any "creativity" and must not make any absolutism (unless the creator implements his ideas himself).
The source code is notes written down on paper, it's not music, it's just notes. And notes should be given to composer...
Most likely the performer used some of his own template code libraries(trading functions etc) in the order, but even then he has to give them to the customer (they are just a composition of paint the performer used to write the notes on paper). If the executor's template libraries are some kind of exclusive "zest", they can be passed to the client as separate closed libraries, complete with the source code of the Expert Advisor (indicator, script), about which the executor is obliged to warn in advance.
Michelangelo painted the Sextin Chapel for the Pope.
Who is the artist and creator?
...
p.s..
To the moderator, I didn't violate anything in this post.
I repeated the post - because it was removed - the reason for removal is not clear - perhaps you can explain - but if you can not and again will remove I will write to the service desk and ask for clarification of your actions
All this talk only because there are no specific rules that set out all the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
And if the financial side is at stake, in my opinion, it should be.
Try applying this logic to other areas of work.
Imagine that you are not a coder, but a designer or architect.
For example, I order an architect to build a house on the basis of some sketch. The house is built, the work is paid for, I move in, and then one day the architect comes to see me and it turns out that I do not own the house. The architect, it turns out, applied some trick to its construction and does not want anyone else but me to live in this house and even more so that I sold it.
Do you feel the absurdity? It turns out that the architect has applied "a bunch of sets of documents, such as "Task definition", "Information support", "Algorithmic support" and others -- where the future product is described in detail, down to the "letter" of the algorithm."
You are simply substituting concepts. The complexity of the work, its detail, its intellectual, documentary and algorithmic component has nothing to do with THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP to the final product.
And even if, suddenly, while working on a house, the architect will apply something super secret, say, some kind of black room for communications, forbidden and inaccessible to the owner of the house, he at least, MUST CONFIRM such an option with the owner of the house.
In other words - if you don't like the fact that by getting paid you lose ownership of the code - then either don't work on such terms, or patent your inventions as intellectual property, or warn the customer about your specifics in advance.
All this talk only because there are no specific rules that set out all the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
And if the financial side is at stake, in my opinion it must be ...
I do not think it is easy to describe everything, but that is what arbitration is.
p.s.
Finally, I hope we're back on topic.
All this talk only because there are no specific rules that set out all the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
And if the financial side is at stake, in my opinion, it should be.
Try applying this logic to other businesses.
In other words - if you don't like that by getting paid you lose ownership of the code - then either don't work on those terms, or patent your inventions as intellectual property, or warn the customer about your specifics in advance.
I don't think it's easy to describe everything, but that's what arbitration is.
p.s.
finally hopefully back on topic