Selling EA I asked developer to create - page 2

New comment
 
Dominik Christian Egert #:

The difference is that you don't pay for the terminal or the compiler. Yes, your example has been exaggerated. XD

It's simple, the client asks you to code something, and it's that code (entirely) that you have to provide them with. Not just a part of it.

I insist, if the developer depends on a library, it's the developer's problem. They can reduce it to the essential or even not use them, as it's not something mandatory, and we are discussing something at the developer's choice.

Admitted, if MQ changed fundamental behaviour, like they have done in the past, the customer were stuck with a library that wyou ouldn't compile against anymore, but so would the source code. So at this point the customer is left with broken product anyways...

Exactly, that's why you have to provide ALL the source code, because we don't know if something might break in the future, and the client must have the possibility to either fix it themselves or hire another developer without depending on you at any moment. On the contrary, what you propose would force them to come to you after maybe one year, which would monopolize the client or even, if you disappear, the work they paid for would end up in the trash.

 
Miguel Angel Vico Alba #:

The difference is that you don't pay for the terminal or the compiler. Yes, your example has been exaggerated. XD

It's simple, the client asks you to code something, and it's that code (entirely) that you have to provide them with. Not just a part of it.

I insist, if the developer depends on a library, it's the developer's problem. They can reduce it to the essential or even not use them, as it's not something mandatory, and we are discussing something at the developer's choice.

Admitted, if MQ changed fundamental behaviour, like they have done in the past, the customer were stuck with a library that wyou ouldn't compile against anymore, but so would the source code. So at this point the customer is left with broken product anyways...

Exactly, that's why you have to provide ALL the source code, because we don't know if something might break in the future, and the client must have the possibility to either fix it themselves or hire another developer without depending on you at any moment. On the contrary, what you propose would force them to come to you after maybe one year, which would monopolize the client or even, if you disappear, the work they paid for would end up in the trash.

Yes, I can fully follow this argumentation, and I do understand it.

Still, I see a type of "double standards" in this.

Let's say, for the argument, the personal std lib is a free product on the market, and available just like the terminal, as binary.

It would and wouldn't be part of the work that needs to be delivered....

Yes, I know, I changed the preset by saying the library is a free product on the market. I did this to make the thought more comparable to the terminal.

This, with the library as free product, shows from which point I am arguing from, as that part of work is not payed for by the customer, as it is already been done beforehand.

Still, and if I turn the argument concerning the terminal, changing the termina in such way that the delivered work is now broken, could also be argued in this direction. 

So the customer is, in both situations, and if looking at both developers MQ and the freelancer as the source of the product delivered, screwed.

He would either have to go back to a terminal version that still works, or depend on the free library to be updated.

In both cases the situation is, seen from a customers standpoint, the same.

And if I would demand my software, written for Windows 3.0, to still run on Windows 11, it would be seen as "a stupid request". So, if I get a software developed by a company in 1990 for windows 3.0 and I have the source to that software, I still would need it to be rewritten.

The argument I am trying to make is, there are two standards applied to the work result of a freelancer and the work result of MQ, or any other software company.

Let's not forget, MSVC runtime v 2.0 won't work on current machines either. Even if you have the source to your program, if it depends on libraries not available anymore on current platform, you need to go back until you find a match that works.

But what if that match is to old to work with current technology, like internet pages and internet explorer 3.0... same problem.

You see, I will find a lot of such issues within the IT industry. And all of them are solved by EOL statements.

Another example would be COBOL programs. IBM supports them till today. There are programs out there that have been written in the 60s... But the company IBM has gone so far to support them until today. S390 Series has a special software for emulating the old hard and software to run that.

The developer(s) are long gone.

In general, I personally think MQ is in a state where they as a software company need to beef up their game, especially as an industry leader, it is an obligation for them to move forward finally, and to introduce a much more modern approach to their monetarisation game.

The overall attitude if MQ has a touch of narcissism to it. Not the individual, but the company itself.

I personally think the "double standards" have been shown by my argumentation and just because of this "gray space", I keep my efforts towards the end users and try to contribute to the main product, if it is in the positive for everyone.

All my code is GPLv2 for a reason. And I follow Linus Torvalds approach here.This is ultimately why I am not part of the freelance coders force on this page.
 
Dominik Christian Egert #:
Shouldnt you receive the source as well as the customer of a freelance job?

What's the usual practice here? Do customers usually only get the binary?

Another question, I have in this context, if it is best practice to also hand the source. What if the developer is using a personal "standard library" would he be required to hand out that source as well? Or would it be enough to pass this part of code (iE as ex5-library) in binary?

And if it needs to be handed in source, how is the rights defined on that part of the work?


Both parties should agree, also on what will be delivered. Most customers want the sources. But there is no rule about that, it's all negotiable. There is no obligation to provide source code.
 
Alain Verleyen #:
Both parties should agree, also on what will be delivered. Most customers want the sources. But there is no rule about that, it's all negotiable. There is no obligation to provide source code.
I see. Thank you for clarifying.
12
New comment