What does a freelancing client pay for for an EA in exp format or for open source code? - page 10
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
Tell me, is there a single bit of information in Windows code that does not belong to the notional Bill Gates? And how often does he sue the programmers who work for him?
Does the fact that a programmer writes code not in a firm, but on a freelance basis, somehow change the essence of the laws of the Russian Federation? I don't think so.
I.e. the main problem with freelancing on this topic is
The rules do not stipulate who is the owner of the product. There is at least no mentioning that the parties have to resolve this issue, if necessary.
2. Developer is the wrong term. The correct term is executor.
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.
Then let's try to look at it in a different way - with an analogy.
The customer ordered the house - demanded all the drawings of the house , plans of communications - all normal and understandable!
But it is unlikely that the customer can require the contractor to provide all the drawings and documentation for those tools with which this house was built
let's say a concrete mixer was used which the contractor built himself - why would the customer need its schematic drawings?
-------------
- my point is that the developer's personal library was used to write the software!
And in programming it can be arranged - do not give the source code of the libraries (i.e. do not give a description of the concrete mixer) but give the source code of the order ( drawings of the house and communications )
I.e. the main problem with freelancing on this topic is
1. the rules do not stipulate who owns the product in the first place. There is at least no mention that the parties have to resolve this issue, if necessary.
2. Developer is the wrong term. The correct term is executor.
Then let's try to look at it in a different way - with an analogy.
The customer ordered the house - demanded all the drawings of the house , plans of communications - all normal and understandable!
but it is unlikely that the client can require the contractor to provide all the drawings and documentation for the tools used to build the house.
let's say a concrete mixer was used which the contractor built himself - why would the customer need its schematic drawings?
-------------
- I would suggest that the developer's personal library was used to write the software!
And in programming it can be arranged - do not give the source code of the libraries (i.e. do not give a description of the concrete mixer) but give the source code of the order ( house drawings and communications )
1. Obviously, the executor cannot be the owner.
Then let's try to look at it in a different way - with an analogy.
The customer ordered the house - demanded all the drawings of the house , plans of communications - all normal and understandable!
but it is unlikely that the client can require the contractor to provide all the drawings and documentation for the tools used to build the house.
let's say a concrete mixer was used which the contractor built himself - why would the customer need its schematic drawings?
-------------
- I would suggest that the developer's personal library was used to write the software!
And in programming it can be arranged - do not give the source code of the libraries (i.e. do not give a description of the concrete mixer) but give the source code of the order ( house drawings and communications )
in most cases cannot
I mentioned this earlier and others have said - the contractor has the right to transfer his compiled libraries along with the sources of the order, the contractor must notify the client if his libraries are present in the project, otherwise he refuses to do the job.
In the sense that doing some work does not give you the right to own the results.
I meant when the contractor works on a project together with the client and even acts as a driver of ideas
And in this situation, both the client and I usually understand that the product is kind of common.