Hi guys,

 

I think, (and I haven't had any issues like this as I haven't done
freelance/web work in a long time!) your problem is that this is a
SUBSEQUENT maintenance stage. You have already deployed the original
software to the clients server, so they feel that if they didn't ask for the
maintenance, then you don't have the "right" to do it.

 

I think you should follow the closed source application software model in
these cases, where with normal closed source apps, you pay an initial amount
to have the software, then a yearly maintenance contract amount which gives
the client updates as well as tech support. Then if the client chooses not
to take the maintenance, it is their prerogative, and if there is a
subsequent security issue, you are covered as well, as you offered them the
maintenance contract they declined.

 

You can point out that with open source software there is no need to pay the
initial amount to "own" the software, and what you are paying for is your
skills and time to install and customise the software to their liking. So
they are still saving some money overall.

 

Vivian

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jochen Daum
Sent: Monday, 27 July 2009 10:48 AM
To: PHPUG
Subject: [phpug] [OT] legal: retain ownership of code until paid and open
source licence

 

Hi all,

I'm looking for experiences with the following problem:

we're  distributing most of our code under open source licences to clients
and I wonder if anyone has had experiences with the following scenario:

- Project get developed and delivered under open source licence to client on
clients server
- Later, a round of maintenance is developed and rolled out to the clients
staging server.
- Clients disputes nature of maintenance request and withholds payment

Now, normally we have a clause in our contract that we withhold the licence
of source code until it is paid. I found a similar clause in Egressive's
contract here:
http://www.phpug.org.nz/index.php/Business_Terms_and_Conditions and our own
contract has pretty much an identical clause:

"3.1 The Supplier, subject to payment in full of all owing, grants the
Purchaser a non-exclusive licence in respect of all pre-existing material of
the Supplier, which comprises the Agreement Type upon completion of The
Project , ..."

But after completion of the maintenance we would have distributed open
source code already?

Do I need to keep code on my own staging server at all times to get around
this?

Kind Regards,

Jochen Daum

Chief Automation Officer
Automatem Ltd

Phone: 09 630 3425
Mobile: 021 567 853
Email: [email protected]
Skype: jochendaum
Website: www.automatem.co.nz
http://twitter.com/automatem
http://www.xing.com/go/invite/3425509.181107



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug
To post, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to
[email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to