Adele,

I think you are jumping to a number of incorrect conclusions. Again, it does not have to be "either/or", or "all or nothing". It does not have to be "give the client all code without restrictions" or "client is up the creek". Using the example I provided above, the Client might be provided with all code minus the code for the unique module. The code for the module might be held in a software escrow account so that in the event that the integrator went under that code would also be provided to the Client. And if the client decided they wanted to work with another integrator they would lose that feature only. Or perhaps the contract specfies that in that event the Client can have all the code but there will be an extra charge for that module.

All of this should be clearly spelled out in writing. Now if you say "I would never agree to that", that's fine, because at least it's been put in writing and you have been able to make an informed decision. But to argue the flip side IF that code is truly unique, then you really aren't losing anything by going with that integrator, are you? In other words, you are still getting ALL the code EXCEPT for the one thing that is totally unique that you can't get from anyone else anyhow.

To look at it another way, that integrator is probably going to have a hard time negotiating that agreement unless his code truly has special value to the client, no?!


This is an irrelevant an argument whether Alan makes it from the programmer side for why the customer does not deserve the code or you make it from the customer side for why you deserve it. It doesn't matter if it cost me $10 to develop it or $100,000, nor whether I have made $1 in profit on it or $1,000,000. All that matters is whether I have developed something of value, and if I have, I can decide what (if ANY) limitations I want to put on it and you can decide if you believe it also has value and if so what (if ANY) limitations you are willing to have put on it and still purchase it. No different than when I purchase a movie on iTunes knowing I will not be able to watch it on any portable player but an iPod.

If a business has developed something of true value, it does not just start giving it away just because it has made a profit on it! I don't see Apple making the iphone OS open source just because they have made billions on it. Now that IS a good analogy, because I am simply pointing out that business are not obligated to give away their intellectual property simply because they have recouped their costs on something.


I believe that is a bit naive and oversimplified. It's extremely important to have good relationships but IF they have developed something of value that does not mean a business is obligated to just give everything away to make the client happy. I keep emphasizing the word "IF" because in most instances I don't think most of the code under discussion has any real value other than in the mind of the developer. But the market can decide that. In other words, customer can tell the programmer to fly a kite if they don't see anything unique enough about what the programmer is providing, to make them want to agree to any code limitations. On the other hand, if they can't get the same thing anywhere else, then they may agree to some limitation, no?

I believe that 90%, maybe 99% of this issue would be entirely solved simply by having clear cut agreements and informed consent. Once consumers understand they have interests to protect, most of this nonsense of the code being held hostage will stop because most programmers are not going to lose projects by refusing to provide it. And I believe this is why so many programmers feel so threatened by the issue being discussed. Because they know the truth of the matter is they have not developed anything unique enough to be able to get a client to agree to limitations when there will be 10 other programmers willing to do the work and provide all code.