Providing Source Code to Customers. - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
say what you want, the same rule also states:
"the Developer can use the developed software for his or her own needs" Own needs, as parts of the code to other projects and own knowledge, not for selling the idea or use it as an entire piece. Own needs, not third party needs. OWN!!! :)
and btw. to.imply source code and _exclusive rights_ for the average (hunger) price of the freelance jobs is _laughable_
No, this is not the principle, if you do not want to give the rights to the costumer, you have to tell him before.
Thank you both. Alain Verleyen and Lorentzos Roussos for your answer.
Yes, it is required by default and is stated as "As a rule, the solution is submitted as source code, because the compiler version may change in the future in which case the recompilation of the solution may be required."
Thanks for this quotation, I was not aware it was included in the rules. (They change/update the rules without notification, bad practice from MQ as usual).
But
1. That doesn't talk about the source code, but about software.
2. It confirms you are not forced to anything.
I don't know anything about the laws in that matter, must be very complicated in a Worlwide context as on this site, but I would be curious to know how it would work in case of dispute.
If you have exclusive rights to ordered software, then you would have the right to demand any source code, defined by the term exclusive.
I believe the term "Program" and "Source Code" have a separate meaning.
Examples of Programs are files ending in .dll, .ex4, .ex5, while examples of Source Codes include files ending in .mqh, .mq4, .mq5, .c. .cpp, .h, etc.
MQL5.com Rules supersedes any other information as the Rules govern the usage of the Freelance services and was the only rules accepted by both Developers and Customers before a work is either published or applied for.
MQL5.com Rules states that any request not in the Requirements Specification will not be put into consideration when any dispute arises and filed for arbitration.
You may have exclusive rights to the executable's use and distribution, if such was the agreement, but you don't have the copyrights to the actual source code. That belongs to the developer.
Getting the developer to sell you the copyrights requires a very lengthy and complex legal procedure, requiring the services of laweyers, which is certainly not done via the Freelance section.
However ...
There is no such rule for the freelance section.
You may have exclusive rights to the executable's use and distribution, if such was the agreement, but you don't have the copyrights to the actual source code. That belongs to the developer.
Getting the developer to sell you the copyrights requires a very lengthy and complex legal procedure, requiring the services of laweyers, which is certainly not done via the Freelance section.
However ...
Putting aside source code for a minute, lets focus on rights. Ultimately, you don't get to decide what the MQL5.com terms are. You either agree to them or you don't. Those terms state quite explicitly that the rights default to the customer without the specifications indicating otherwise. The developer cannot do what they wish by default with the code as this would be in violation of the Freelancer terms. If you think that an attorney is going to state that you are not obligated to adhere to a freelancer contract that you agree to with MQL5 and get to pick and choose with terms you think are valid and are not, but ARE obligated to adhere to all specification terms agreed to between the developer and customer, then this is contradictory. You cannot say that this MQL5 term is illegal and cant be upheld but terms decided on between the developer and customer are valid and binding.
If we are to assume that the freelancer terms are in fact valid, then this would lead one to assume that exclusive rights to all programs developed would presume the source code being provided to the customer, the rights holder. You cannot unreasonably withhold a computer program including its code if you are not exclusive the rights holder. To do so would require you to have the exclusive rights to begin with. Since by default, the terms state you do not, you cannot exercise a right you do not have and withhold the code. The terms state "all the exclusive rights to the ordered software". All is encompassing and implies multiple rights which includes the source code and it does NOT state it excludes source code. Rights to software include rights to the program, rights to distribute the program, rights to the code and possibly others not mentioned. The terms state ALL the exclusive rights. ALL. This naturally implies a right to the source code. It does not state exclusive right to distribute the software. It does not state an exclusive right to own the software. It says ALL the exclusive rights to the software which must include the source code. As someone who has deeply involve himself in the legal world around software licensing, I can assure you this is as broad as it gets. Not to mention, it is vague and generalized which does not give you any reason to assume it limits in any way any rights to the program. How can one have all exclusive rights to something but also be limited in the ability to not have the source code? The part where you conveniently limit the rights to everything but the source code is not up to you.
In an article, on https://www.codemag.com/article/1509041/Legal-Notes-Who-Owns-the-Code, it states: "Like an employment situation, depending on the arrangement, what the client owns may be broader than what you think. The terms of the contract control who owns the code". In this case, the terms of the contract are spelled out by MQL5.com and both the developer and customer agree to them. I own ALL exclusive rights to the program developed. Not having the code means I now have less than all exclusive rights and would be a violation of the terms. Courts defer to any agreements made between both parties before imposing a decision. This is consistent with case law as nauseum.
Thanks for this quotation, I was not aware it was included in the rules. (They change/update the rules without notification, bad practice from MQ as usual).
But
1. That doesn't talk about the source code, but about software.
2. It confirms you are not forced to anything.
I don't know anything about the laws in that matter, must be very complicated in a Worlwide context as on this site, but I would be curious to know how it would work in case of dispute.
It says ALL exclusive rights. It does not list certain rights or list off what rights are conveyed and which ones are not. It says ALL exclusive rights. All cannot be interpreted any other way other than to include rights to the source code, since source code is not excluded. The terms do not define that software means only a compiled program. When you have "all exclusive rights to software", this must include the source code.
Putting aside source code for a minute, lets focus on rights. Ultimately, you don't get to decide what the MQL5.com terms are. You either agree to them or you don't. Those terms state quite explicitly that the rights default to the customer without the specifications indicating otherwise. The developer cannot do what they wish by default with the code as this would be in violation of the Freelancer terms. If you think that an attorney is going to state that you are not obligated to adhere to a freelancer contract that you agree to with MQL5 and get to pick and choose with terms you think are valid and are not, but ARE obligated to adhere to all specification terms agreed to between the developer and customer, then this is contradictory. You cannot say that this MQL5 term is illegal and cant be upheld but terms decided on between the developer and customer are valid and binding.
If we are to assume that the freelancer terms are in fact valid, then this would lead one to assume that exclusive rights to all programs developed would presume the source code being provided to the customer, the rights holder. You cannot unreasonably withhold a computer program including its code if you are not exclusive the rights holder. To do so would require you to have the exclusive rights to begin with. Since by default, the terms state you do not, you cannot exercise a right you do not have and withhold the code. The terms state "all the exclusive rights to the ordered software". All is encompassing and implies multiple rights which includes the source code and it does NOT state it excludes source code. Rights to software include rights to the program, rights to distribute the program, rights to the code and possibly others not mentioned. The terms state ALL the exclusive rights. ALL. This naturally implies a right to the source code. It does not state exclusive right to distribute the software. It does not state an exclusive right to own the software. It says ALL the exclusive rights to the software which must include the source code. As someone who has deeply involve himself in the legal world around software licensing, I can assure you this is as broad as it gets. Not to mention, it is vague and generalized which does not give you any reason to assume it limits in any way any rights to the program. How can one have all exclusive rights to something but also be limited in the ability to not have the source code? The part where you conveniently limit the rights to everything but the source code is not up to you.
In an article, on https://www.codemag.com/article/1509041/Legal-Notes-Who-Owns-the-Code, it states: "Like an employment situation, depending on the arrangement, what the client owns may be broader than what you think. The terms of the contract control who owns the code". In this case, the terms of the contract are spelled out by MQL5.com and both the developer and customer agree to them. I own ALL exclusive rights to the program developed. Not having the code means I now have less than all exclusive rights and would be a violation of the terms. Courts defer to any agreements made between both parties before imposing a decision. This is consistent with case law as nauseum.
The URL attached specifically mention when that might apply, not in the case of freelancing(where the individual is self-employed). Freelancing is not among the Work for Hire category being claimed.
In order for freelancers here on the site to keep prices at a messily $30, they reuse their code extensively.
They have built up a library or template of sorts for an EA, which they then adjust and customise for each customer's requirements.
This means that the freelancer does not create an exclusive piece of code for each the customer. This is the only way their prices are kept so ridiculously low.
And again, exclusive rights to a program, does not imply exclusive rights to the source code.
One should also remember, that on the freelance section here, no physical legal documentation, nor contract was established and physically signed between the two parties, making it all a "for personal use only" situation.