Contractor does not give the original files or the year is new and the problems are old - page 2

New comment
 
Slava:

The source code is given by the contractor unconditionally before the job is completed.

Until the source code is transferred, the client must not close the job. If he does, the SCCB will be closed.

If the contractor has not passed the source code, the client has the full right to open arbitration for a refund.

All of this is explicitly described in the Freelance Rules

in the rules ofhttps://www.mql5.com/ru/job/rules.

A search on the "source" page yielded 2 matches:

Going to the next stepis

with the purpose of obtainingthe source code of software owned by third parties,


or are there more Freelance rules?

 
Igor Makanu:

in the ruleshttps://www.mql5.com/ru/job/rules

a search of the "ex" page yielded two matches:


or are there more Freelance rules?

Maybe I'm glitching, but at the time of approval there does seem to be a clause about the sources. That the contractor must hand them over. Of course, I may have confused something, I haven't ordered anything in freelance for a long time. But it seems to me during the discussion, one of the clauses does contain it.
 
Scarick:
Maybe I'm glued course, but during the coordination there in one of the paragraphs really seems to be about the sources. That the contractor must give them. Of course, maybe I confused something, I haven't ordered anything in freelance for a long time. But it seems to me during the discussion, one of the points really is.

I would like to see it, that's why I'm asking if this is stipulated by the rules.

I often see job descriptions in Freelance, where at the end of the text the client specifies - at the end of the job the developer will give the source code

so i think it appeared due to the lack of a specific wording in the rules of Freelance


imho, it is logical - if the developer does not want to transfer his development - he does not accept the order with a requirement for source code; if the customer wants to be 100% sure that he will get the source code - he accepts and specifies it in ToR

 
Igor Makanu:

I would like to see it, that's why I'm asking if this is stipulated by the rules.

I often see job descriptions in Freelance, where at the end of the text the client specifies - at the end of the job the developer will give the source code

so i think it appeared due to the lack of a specific wording in the rules of Freelance


imho, it is logical - if the developer does not want to transfer their work - do not take an order with a requirement of source code, if the customer wants to be 100% sure that the source code will be there - take it and indicate in the TOR

I'm telling you, I do not remember) long time since I worked with freelancing. But even without specifying in ToR, I was always at the stage of demonstration or somewhere there, threw away the sources. Or I asked them myself, or they were automatically sent to me. No one was indignant that this question was not specified in TOR.
Maybe, of course, I was lucky, and the developers were kind. But I purposely checked all 5 ToRs and never specified source code. All the time I got them all without any questions. I'm more surprised by the fact that the author initially did not ask for sources. Doesn't he/she really care what's inside it? Or maybe the logic is: it works and it works, so why look at the sources.

 
Scarick:
Maybe I am glued of course, but during negotiations it seems that in one of the clauses there is indeed talk about sources. That the contractor should hand them over. Of course, maybe I confused something, I haven't ordered anything in freelance for a long time. But it seems to me during the discussion, one of the paragraphs really is.
In the rules, section 3 "Description of steps", paragraph 5, subparagraph 2 states: "Transmission of work is done by laying out the solution in the form of files. The number of files is not limited".

Yes, it is not specified which files need to be uploaded, but the client did ask for the source files. Although after signing the agreement. And he is happy to demonstrate his integrity to the client on an empty space.

But there is also point 12, section "General provisions", which defines the full copyright of the customer (unless otherwise stated):

"Unless the terms for the transfer of exclusive rights to the software that is created on commission through the Freelance service are separately agreed in the Terms of Reference, the exclusive rights to this software created on commission belong to the Customer."

That is, the execution of the order implies the execution of the order, not the implementation of their own developments (a statement of their rights to the product on the part of the contractor is an infringement). Well and logic dictates that if the client needs to further develop the product (which in theory is what happened), he will need the source code. Otherwise he must start from the beginning.

That is, on the one hand there is an obvious oversight, but on the other hand there is an excessive adherence to principles, almost boorish... And claims of copyright.
 
Yevhenii Levchenko:
And copyright claims.

imho, this is the place to end the discussion - copyright on intellectual property is not just a statement of some involvement, but a whole procedure - get a prior claim and then warn before working with third parties, but not vice versa, otherwise it always turns out that if something does not suit someone - it affects the copyright, and then all rush to protect someone's idea / writing

and in general, intellectual property disputes are a never-ending discussion, especially when it comes to digital products

 
Igor Makanu:

copyright of intellectual property is not just a claim of some sort, but a whole procedure - formalise beforehand and then give notice before working with third parties, BUT not vice versa

Igor, well, there, in the rules, copyright ownership is automatically assumed... You don't even have to declare anything :)

It's all easy to solve in a human way. I have never come across any super-efficient ideas (or any productive ones, in a good sense). Probably a purely principled dispute there.

One has missed it, and the other is stubborn...

 
Yevhenii Levchenko:

Igor, there, in the rules, copyright ownership is automatically assumed... You don't even need to declare anything :)

It's all easy to solve in a human way. I have never come across any super-efficient ideas (or any productive ones, in a good sense). Probably a purely principled dispute there.

One has missed it, and the other is stubborn...

A more likely scenario is that the doer does not have the source files.

He is a middleman speculator, and somewhere he had a problem with the final developer (for example too little shared from previous works).

 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

A more likely possibility is that the contractor does not have the source files.

He's a middleman profiteer and somewhere he didn't get along with the final developer (e.g. shared too little from previous works).

0_o

Like there is a bunch of Chinese guys pedaling in basements, coding instead of supposed executor? Or like some craftsman got blocked and found himself a pad?

 
Yevhenii Levchenko:

One missed it and the other stubbornly...

well, yes... But often these non-agreements start to "blow smoke up", then the customer starts "riding" the developer - and let's do this again, and let's do this again, what do you need...., then in this case - "waving a banner" with threats to publish the developer's contacts?

imho, if not specified in the rules and not stipulated in the agreement - everyone does as he sees fit, and discuss someone's actions from their own position of morality? personal experience? ...imho not right, everyone can have their own reasons for acting that way

12345678910
New comment