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.

He hasn't been hired. He's working freelance. Read the root node, read the link he provides.

I'm not advocating that everyone should obfuscate their code, or play hardball. But there are times when it is desirable to take some precautions.

Where did I say that people should write unmaintainable code for their employers? It's a different situation. If you are being employed you have a contract. Here there is no contract. It's not job security because there is no job. It's much more like MS not handing out the source to their programs.

I agree with you about the open source stuff.

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