Rules under Work - 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
So far, it's not working without source code.
Almost every new build requires recompilation.
That's understandable. Actually, I think it would be more convenient for you too, if the form of the product you ordered was immediately indicated in the application form. This is a response to the second post.
Unfortunately, we cannot demand from customers that they have a detailed understanding of the subtleties of a programmer's work (and in particular, the peculiarities of file extensions). Not all of them are close to these issues. And since the parties are equal when agreeing on the ToR, the contractor may well take the lead in stating certain details of the assignment.
And about the first (paragraphs 1.5-1.6 of the Rules and 1.9, 2.3-2.8) frankly, I do not understand. What rules are you referring to?
Really, I don't understand. If you mean these, then 2.8 isn't there... What other rules are there, give me a link?
The rules are the same. I just saw that you didn't use the section number reference in your start post, so I did the same. Of course, full links should be that way:
Such demands of the Employer will be unjustified, if the Applicant, in his offer for work (clauses 1.5-1.6 of Section I of the Regulations), explicitly specifies his particulars of work and then, based on clauses 1.9 of Section I and 2.3-2.8 of Section III of the Regulations, provides these details in the Terms of Reference.
Exactly. You say 'in theory'. That's what I am saying too. I personally am thinking about writing on demand, but if there is disagreement on this point, I see no point. I don't want to give out my sources.
So don't give it away, if possible.
If the customer agrees without sources (or with a minimum of openness year) all can be put out without sources. If you want in the future and can use the shop (if the work will be worthwhile and there will be demand for it).
But there is a catch, with the sources of a good project can cost an order (or two) more expensive.
So far it is not possible without sources.
Almost every new build requires recompilation.
This can also be stipulated in the job application or directly in the ToR,
Unfortunately, we cannot require customers to have a detailed understanding of the intricacies of the programmer's work (and, in particular, the specifics of file extensions). Not all of them are close to these issues.
IMHO, such a small thing for the customer would be worth it. not such a fool, as it may seem.
And if I order a great trawl, even for a hundred bucks, and then quietly remake it, and half a price, even a dime, immediately (!) begin to sell, so it would be nice? I wonder what we'll come to then...
In short, the topic caught on and relevant. I think to put it to a vote.
ZS. May the academic forgive me! Amen ))
Not working. I do not understand how to create a vote)).
IMHO, such a small thing for the customer would be worth introducing. he is not as stupid as he may seem.
Obligatory - in the ToR. See paragraphs 2.4-2.5 of Section III of the Rules.
In such a scheme, most likely yes, but in my opinion something else is needed in addition to the ToR (like a work contract).
I do not know how it is correct, but I personally believe that the TOR is secondary and is only an appendix to the contract (application).
I'm not arguing. I just want to say that there is a way out of this situation, and the way out is quite obvious (in my opinion).
Yes, I agree. There is a way out. There always is. Even if you're eaten, you can always find a couple of ways out (and if a programmer, Nv=Nvh*2).
I mean, that there is no point in going into the application, if then the customer says for $ 20 - I want all the sources (and they are 50 sheets A4). Yes, of course, you can talk about this point in the discussion of terms of reference. But just imagine. You agree with one customer, and at this point did not get along, broke up. You negotiate with another one, and here too. И...
Why waste your time if you know right away in what form you want the product?
After all, when making a request it is easier for him to put a checkmark like - "I want the source code". We will see this, and who is not ready to provide them, and will not bother. Or will, depending on the price and volume.
I am for such a checkbox. For all we know, the sources cost an order of magnitude more...
In such a scheme, most likely yes, but in my opinion, in addition to the ToR, something else is needed (like a contract for work).
I don't know the correct way of looking at it, but I personally believe that the TOR is secondary and is only an appendix to the contract (application).
And what is a "contract"? - It is simply an agreement between the parties on certain essential terms. At the same time, the document itself may not be called a "contract". It may not even be in writing. When we buy something in a shop, we get nothing but a receipt, because in this case, the receipt confirms the conclusion of a contract of sale without being put in writing.
According to the same Regulations, the job ticket must contain all the essential terms of the contract between the customer and the contractor, ie the job on its legal nature (pardon the terminology) is a contract of work (Article 702 of the Civil Code). It is simply because of the specific nature of such a written document that they have decided to call it a ToR.
Yes, I agree. There is a way out. There always is. Even if you're eaten, you can always find a couple of ways out (and if a programmer, Nv=Nvh*2).
I mean, that there is no point in going into the application, if then the customer says for $ 20 - I want all the sources (and they are 50 sheets A4). Yes, of course, you can talk about this point in the discussion of terms of reference. But just imagine. You agree with one customer, and at this point did not get along, broke up. You negotiate with another one, and here too. И...
Why waste your time if you know right away in what form you want the product?
After all, when making a request it is easier for him to put a checkmark like - "I want the source code". We will see this, and who is not ready to provide them, and will not bother. Or will, depending on the price and volume.
I am for such a checkbox. For all know, the sources are much more expensive.
Again, I will not argue. But, as pointed out earlier, the contractor is not a passive party in such a relationship, as he posts "his offer to do the work". I can't understand what prevents a potential Executor from immediately stating one phrase in that offer: "the sources will cost 15 times as much". Or "I do not sell the sources". There will be no further waste of time - the customer either agrees and chooses such an Applicant, or forgets about it.
... Got it. You may have been talking about the time taken to "delve into the bid" before submitting your bid. But no one forbids to check such details beforehand (if this really takes a lot of time).