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
On 5/15/07, Christopher Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good Lord Mike, why on earth did you agree to this kind of arrangement
> in the first place!? :o)
I agree. I would never have accepted such a strange gig - the client's
out of their mind! :)
> In short, I think it's your client who's bei
> If his needs are that strict, make him provide an exact duplicate
> system for development and testing, so you can test in an exact
> replica of his environment, without being on his servers.
My vote falls goes for this solution.
I had a large corp. client a number of years ago that I was pret
>>I am thinking I'll submit my final invoice for the completion of the job
on an "as is" basis, and give them the CD with the code on it when i
get the cheque.
And I'm thinking you're damn right! ;-)
>>when i get the cheque.
When you get the cheque CASHED! ;-)
--
___
15/07, Kevin Aebig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Beer button? Complete Genius...
>
> !k
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Jordan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: OT: is this wrong on my cli
ebig wrote:
> Beer button? Complete Genius...
>
> !k
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Jordan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: OT: is this wrong on my client's part?
>
> Good Lord Mik
*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
Beer button? Complete Genius...
!k
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Jordan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT: is this wrong on my client's part?
Good Lord Mike, why on earth did you agree to this kind of arrangement
i
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
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: is this wrong on my client's part?
I have a client who is REALLY paranoid about access control and who
wants me to develop a complex shopping cart for him, but never have
access to his system. I have to submit my finished proj
ds 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.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: is
Good Lord Mike, why on earth did you agree to this kind of arrangement
in the first place!? :o)
I think I'd tell the client to get stuffed, but if you've already put in
a bunch of time on it then I think I'd triple my normal rate, and do
like you said and charge for each and every bug you fix.
If his needs are that strict, make him provide an exact duplicate
system for development and testing, so you can test in an exact
replica of his environment, without being on his servers.
This will save money in the long run, by cutting down on testing
rounds, and providing a good platform for fut
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
as this sounds like a nightmare.
!k
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: is this wrong on my client's part?
I have a client who is REALLY paranoid about access control and who
wants me to develop a c
007 4:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: is this wrong on my client's part?
I have a client who is REALLY paranoid about access control and who
wants me to develop a complex shopping cart for him, but never have
access to his system. I have to submit my finished project on CD,
then he'll
I have a client who is REALLY paranoid about access control and who
wants me to develop a complex shopping cart for him, but never have
access to his system. I have to submit my finished project on CD,
then he'll load it up and test it and let me konw if it works.
The site is a cluster of tw
32 matches
Mail list logo
