Wise you are I see; a good decision made have you. May the force be with you.
On 5/17/07, Mike Kear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I walk off into the sunset counting my
> money, and resolving not to do business with him again.
--
mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles:
http://www.bifr
WARNING!!! This suggestion is mostly comical and could get you sued!
Have you considered the idea of self destructing code? Basically, if
you are worried he may take your working code, complain it isnt
working and then not pay you. You can setup your code to "call home"
as it were and check to se
Tha'll do Donkey... tha'll do... ;o)
Mike Kear wrote:
> Yes, i suggested two alternatives -
>
> [A] I own all the IP in the code, and grant him an irrevocable
> perpetual license to use it and any derivative work arising from it,
> or
>
> [B] he owns all the IP and grants me an irrevocable per
Yes, i suggested two alternatives -
[A] I own all the IP in the code, and grant him an irrevocable
perpetual license to use it and any derivative work arising from it,
or
[B] he owns all the IP and grants me an irrevocable perpetual license
to use it and any derivative work arising from it.
> Because he wants to own outright all the IP in the project,
> no pre-written modules can be used. Everything must be
> custom written for him, so he can own all the IP.
You do have a nonexclusive right to reuse algorithms, etc, in your own
development, right?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Softwa
*sigh* client's that know just enough to get in the way. He thinks he
knows what he's talking about because of his pre-MX experience? From the
time before they completely re-wrote the language from the ground up in
Java? Bother. I'm surprised he's not making you put around all
your queries. Ru
Billy Cox wrote:
>
> I would bet that such a project has 0% chance of running when the client
> 'loads it up'. There are just too many miscellaneous things that could be
> configured wrong or miscommunicated for something to work with no on-site
> testing/debugging.
Proper configuration really is
exact same environment.
Good luck...
!k
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: is this wrong on my client's part?
Mike Kear wrote:
>
> I think i'm going to hold my ground and demand
Also, Mike are you going to be delivering him straight CF code, or will
you be delivering him byte code only or perhaps encrypted CF?
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Mike Kear wrote:
>
>> I think i'm going to hold my ground and demand he pays me before he
>> gets the CD. He can see a test version
May 15, 2007 3:36 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: is this wrong on my client's part?
>
> The more I think about it, the more I just want to tell the guy to get
> stuffed. If he doesn't trust anyone then he better start teaching himself to
> code these things. I might be a
Me too Brad. But he was not going to be budged.
He used to code ColdFusion back in hte pre-MX days, and he is of the
opinion that client variable are unreliable. My recollection of the
one experience i had of client vars in CF4.2 was pretty bad then too,
so I think he has some justification for
Mike Kear wrote:
>
> I think i'm going to hold my ground and demand he pays me before he
> gets the CD. He can see a test version on my shared server, so he can
> be confident that i have actually done the work, and see the
> functionality. So in theory that only things that ought to need
> chan
I still don't understand why your client won't let you use client or
session management etc. Can those be exploited?
At first thought I would feel safer with Adobie's tested and true code
than my own home-rolled attempt at something like that.
~Brad
~
We just thought you were being pretentious when you said liqueur.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Jordan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:36 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: is this wrong on my client's part?
The more I think about it, the more I just want to
LOL!! well you buy liqueur from a liquor store. So you were right first time.
Cheers
Mike Kear
On 5/16/07, Christopher Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The more I think about it, the more I just want to tell the guy to get
> stuffed. If he doesn't trust anyone then he better start teaching
>
> My current inclination is to deliver the code as requested, but
> without any warranties that it will work, since I have been required
> to build it without any means of testing it in their environment. I
> am thinking I'll submit my final invoice for the completion of the job
> on an "as is" b
Thanks for your opinions.I think i'm on safe ground then. I've
already got 75% of the money (half up front, and another 25% at a
milestone along the way) so if worst comes to worst, I can walk away
without losing too much.
At the moment I hold the upper hand, because I have the code and he
do
dy spell check... That's *UN*reasonable.
>
> !k
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Aebig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:16 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: is this wrong on my client's part?
>
> I think that it's com
Aside from the fact that the requirements sound like a total pain (but
hey, if it pays), couldn't acceptance testing happen on a server that
you both mutually have access to (so, not the final, live server)? That
would give the client (and you) good reason to expect that it will work
when installe
Tell your client that you won't work under such conditions without 100%
payment up-front. If he says 'no', then walk away and consider yourself to
have been spared many late nights and migraines.
I would bet that such a project has 0% chance of running when the client
'loads it up'. There are just
Bloody spell check... That's *UN*reasonable.
!k
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Aebig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: is this wrong on my client's part?
I think that it's completely reasonable. There's no reason
I think that it's completely reasonable. There's no reason for you to not
have access to the live environment as if you wanted to leave yourself
access, you could.
He can't possibly expect you to debug errors without seeing them or
triggering them?
I hope he pays extremely well, as this sounds li
I would personally want some assurance of payment from his end, if he is
a new customer. I don't think you are being too paranoid at all, this
feels like a somewhat shady arrangement to me.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:
23 matches
Mail list logo
