What does a freelancing client pay for for an EA in exp format or for open source code? - page 6

 
Evgeny Belyaev:
Who's counting? That sounds like a threat!
I mean, consider all the nuances before ordering anything here.
 
Evgeny Belyaev:

What does this have to do with the EA? I'm talking about an indicator!!!

And who told you that someone will sell you an open code indicator from the Market? This, at a minimum, requires the seller's consent!

Well, of course I'll ask the seller.
 
azfaraon:
I mean consider all the nuances before ordering anything here.
You should have just indicated, by the way, that the work should be submitted in source code with comments on each block, if it is so important to you.
 
Vitaly Muzichenko:
Just had to specify, so by the way for the future do it, that the work should be passed in the source code with comments on each block, if it's so important to you.
This isn't the first time I've ordered a job and I've never had any questions about it.
 
azfaraon:
Well, of course I'll make an offer to the seller.
You can make an offer. Who says the seller will sell it to you?
 
Evgeny Belyaev:
You can apply for it. And who says the seller will sell it to you?
That's my own business, I think. I'll solve it myself without your help. Thank you for your concern.
 
Vitaly Muzichenko:
In fact, if the customer came into freelancing, it means that he is not good at code, so he should not care what file he got - it is important that it works according to his TOR. The main thing is that he can't open it and see what's inside, so what he expects to see, if he doesn't know anything, just open it and close, so you can not open anything, but just use the program and that's all, .eh-files support this very possibility. So there's nothing to argue about.
This is a very exuberant fantasy. If someone comes into freelancing and places an order, it doesn't mean anything other than that they are placing an order.
 
azfaraon:
It's my own business, I think. I'll take care of it myself without your help. Thank you for your concern.

Reject it and order it again, but amend the terms of reference. I suggest getting to the bottom of the functionality. What you're not happy with - think of it). Turn on the "stupid".

It seems that if you have a contractor who does not comply with the requirements of the customer, you have the right to reject this contractor.

Even without freelancing you will be offered to do the job on your terms - 100%.....

I have worked for clients and I can tell you the following - the client can either put a signature or withdraw it.

Also publicise the name of such a contractor so that others don't fall for his blackmail. Most likely he is pressuring you to pay more.

 

The source code should be given, because you are not buying a software product, as in the marketplace, but an algorithm expressed in programming language, that's obvious.

In addition, it is impossible to continue upgrading the EA without the source code.

It's the same as ordering a symphony from a composer and getting the result as a sound file.

The arbitrator must admit his mistake and terminate the agreement in favour of the client.

 
The customer pays for what they order. In freelancing, the order is in the form of a ToR. It is not important who and what is meant by it, but who has not voiced it or put it in the ToR.
There is no need to pump the "masses of righteous anger" towards the creator, using the device of substitution of notions - in this case there is a far-fetched emphasis on what a rascal performer, "I gave him my code, and the developer does not want to give me the code after the completion, offering to pay extra for my own code! What do we have in reality? The customer still has the customer's code in its original form (not improved)? - It remained, no one took it away. That is, the developer just doesn't want to show the improvements he made (maybe he used some of his original developments) for free - if it was not stipulated otherwise when ordering, then what the developer is wrong? The only thing I can add is that the developer would be wrong to sell the modified code without the consent of the owner of the original source code..., but that's not what we're talking about here.
Reason: