(snip)Since this is a normal model of software development you would have to be very specific and say "You will fund the development and I will grant you a license to use it" if you wish to depart from the norm.

However in practical terms you have a lot of power as the sole coder, and you can probably leverage that to your advantage (maybe on a maintenance contract or something). Some gentle code obfuscation would probably help your position later on as well.

I wasn't given a chance to realy answer his question to mine. He basicaly ran off in a virtual sense since the conversation was on ICQ.

I don't feel that giving obfuscated code is a viable answer. Doing such a thing could make me liable if anything goes wrong. Not to mention I'd have to fix it if it breaks. I'd like to be able to read my own code. It's a moral issue and its just the not right thing to do.

I was thinking of creating a license to use the software. But in reading some information on the net (A Software Copyright Primer) on what is considered "Work for Hire" has put a very big question on my hands. And to answer this I think I need a lawyer since the answer to it can be on a very fine line.

As far as verbal contracts are concerned. California has a dislike for them and doesn't view them as binding. I will have to verify this with a lawyer friend of mine though.

I'm just trying to defend myself and not to left with the short end of the rope here. That's all.

BMaximus

Nobody would ask a group forum for advice on a matter like this if they weren't already 'concerned' about their situation. Might I point out that the obfuscated code would still run and do the job required? If there is no specification on coding style, the programmer is free to choose any he likes.

The person was asked a clear question "How many sites?". It only needs a numeric answer, a range, or an approximate like "lots" or "not many". Anything else is dodging, and that is obvious.

Discretion is always called for in these things. If the code is obfuscated, but it all ends nicely, the next version can be some less obfuscated code. It's always possible to do a maintenance release. If it all ends ugly, the coder suddenly has a useful bargaining chip.

Being honest doesn't have to mean being easily manipulated

-------------------

BMaximus, I didn't mean that you should form your code in the letters "JAPH" or anything extreme like that. There are some better solutions. For instance, a script that goes through your program and changes all the varible names to $c, $d, $d and all the functions to sub C, sub D, sub E, etc. Then strip all the comments. Code functions perfectly, but reads like assembler.

One of my friends actually had a supplier do that to them in C. The supplier wanted to be open source without actually giving anyone useful code, so they did the above. My friends job was to figure out what the code did. He reckoned their technique was very effective.

____________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.

I'm uncomfortable with this stance. I for one would not want to hire a person that made their code unreadable. It's too much like "job security" through making sure no one understands what you do.

And the supplier is not being open source if they're being difficult and show poor programming practices. Sounds like they're just trying to say one thing, but they don't believe in it.

Oh no, I never took it that way. In fact now that I think about the conversation with the individual. Ownership of the code was answered when I told him that he couldn't sell the code or sell anything created from parts of it.

To clear up something I said earlier. apparently I was wrong when I said that California dislikes verbal contracts. I had asked a lawyer friend of mine and he said I was quite wrong. California sees verbals as binding.

In my current situation. obfuscating the code in that sort of maner would work against me. I've pretty much figured that I will have to sit him down and discuss what he intends to do and be firm and diplomatic while going about it. After going back and looking at the documents I saw that he intends to incorporate the finished product into something he already has as a feature. This will pretty much change the entire product and make it somewhat different. We have already agreed that he can't sell the code or anything resulting from the addition of the code. Quite frankly I'm wondering if it will constitute a great loss if he puts it on one or two more sites.

BMaximus