21
License to ask for for custom software? (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Someone I know asked me for a favour. They made an agreement with a software firm for some custom software for basically inventory on a web interface, generic DB+webserver. They need me to do updates to it as a favour.

It's handoff time. The guys are giving him some trouble. I let them know if I need to do maintainence and whatnot, I need the source code. The guys are saying no. I recommended we use a licence that basically says "Buyer can modify the software and source code, but not distrobute it. Creator can distrobute the software and whatever they want".

I've looked around, and I saw recommendations for :

  • source code escrow
  • internal-use license
  • Modified Source Code License
  • custom Restricted Source Code License
  • internal modification only licence

anyone have recommendations of specific licences?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (14 children)

I'm not sure I'm understanding the situation. You (Skullgrid; SG) were asked by an acquaintance (ACQ) to help work on a software package that ACQ would deliver to a software firm (SWF). So far, these are the relations that I see:

  • SG is doing a favor for ACQ
  • ACQ has a contract with SWF

Now at the "handoff time", which I presume is when SWF accepts the software as complete and delivered, SWF is complaining about how the software package will be maintained.

If I understand all of that correctly, why does SWF's complaints involve you? You do not have a relationship to SWF. And SWF (correctly) will not let a third-party have source-code access to software that SWF paid for, unless you (SG) are working as a contractor under ACQ.

The real question is how ACQ is handling these concerns: ACQ should demand that SWF negotiate a maintenance contract, one which allows ACQ to use any contractor of their choice (which could include SG).

The idea that SG -- someone with no relationship to SWF -- can use a software license to keep source-code access in order to do future maintenance, that idea is likely dead-on-arrival: SWF owns the software upon delivery, in full. Unless the contractual agreement between SWF and ACQ allows for ACQ to retain a license, ACQ cannot then extend a personal license to SG.

A maintenance contract, however, would grant such a license to ACQ. And if such contract allows for subcontractors to access the source code, then formalizing SG as an unpaid contractor would be a way forward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (13 children)

    It's actually ACQ that's complaining about the maintainence. They want the project to be finished, and if they need some minor changes, for me to get involved. Probably due to the cost of monthly payments (speculation).

    A maintenance contract, however, would grant such a license to ACQ. And if such contract allows for subcontractors to access the source code, then formalizing SG as an unpaid contractor would be a way forward.

    Do you know where I can find an example of this kind of licence?

    EDIT : Basically, ACQ wants changes after delivery date, and I need source code to make the changes and deploy them to wherever. We need a licence that says "ACQ and SG will use the source code only to make changes for their system/deploy and not sell it, SWF keeps all their rights and do whatever they want with the code"

    EDIT2 : I went for a slightly modified Polyform internal use licence, what do you think? https://polyformproject.org/licenses/internal-use/1.0.0

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

    "My lawyer will need to talk to your legal department, he charges $xxx per hour..." If you think I'm being snarky, I'm really not. Your entitled client is hoping to force you to, or let you, do something stupid so they can hang you out to dry or wring you out for free or discount labor, maybe even a "small guy like you should be willing to pay us for the oportunity to do this work".

    I'm not saying to pretend you are a lawyer, I'm saying to get one, and if its all above-board, things will work-out. If it ends up a "missed opportunity", then it was never really an opportunity in the first place.

    Maybe I'm just cynical, but I've always made double or triple the $$-per-hour as a contractor than I have as a W2. Some "clients", head-hunters, and would-be "lead-finding services" would try to interact with me as though being a contractor just meant I was jobless, which, maybe they would have been right, in a world where I had or made the time to interact with people set on wasting it like so...

    Read that last sentence again; By entertaining their non-sense, their assumptions about how they can get-away with exploiting you become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Hire a lawyer or become one. You can be out some money paying the lawyer(which becomes overhead expense to factor-into what money the client should owe you, in beautiful black-and-white contract/invoice form that let's you sleep at night), or you can be out time, near-infinite amounts of time, doing your client's homework on-top-of the programming they ostensibly are paying you for. Everything you care about suffers in the second version, including your code quality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    OK, the situation isn't "get my lawyer involved" it's a person that's close to me that has done big favours for me. I'm only asking about where to get the appropriate software licence. If you think that the Polyform licence isn't something that helps, let me know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    You're always gonna need to be ready or at least able to stop and ask yourself, were the favors that big, or did they just tell you they were? It's the middle of the weekend and you're fretting over this instead of spending your own time how you see fit or coding for profit.

    A company that's asking you to figure this stuff out for them isn't necessarilly going to sign-off on anything too reasonable, but I'll agree my advice was more suited for after that happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    Yes, the favours are/were that big. It's not a company, it's a person I know. I don't want to doxx myself by sharing my life state to this degree. You are giving largely sound career advice to other people, but I'm just asking about an appropriate software license to present to the ACQ, and you haven't given advice on that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    What the other person is saying is that the ACQ should be seeing a lawyer and making SWF pay for the lawyer to figure out a license.

    Your involvement is the maintenance part. You owe your buddy big time, that's fine, but from the sounds of it, you aren't a lawyer. Don't do lawyer stuff. Let the lawyers do their thing and you do your maintenance work.

    SWF should also have their lawyer draft a contract for your involvement which you will be able to sign to be able to do the work.

    We're telling you dude, cover your ass. You don't want to end up on the wrong side of a law suit just because you were doing your part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    What the other person is saying is that the ACQ should be seeing a lawyer and making SWF pay for the lawyer to figure out a license.

    Yep, this is already happening. I am just trying to help ACQ understand that if they want me to do updates, I need source code, and to get source code, maybe they need to have a software licence, maybe something like X. I am asking this board for recommendations on what X could be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Gotcha, sorry didn't understand that. In the code that I've seen so far, there has been no license. Everything was handled in the contract. "Everything you touch is owned by us, all code you write for this project is owned by us, and if you leak it or show it to a third parry without our consent, we have you by the balls". Pretty much been my experience.

    Sometimes there's been a short header in every file "This code is copyrighted and owned by $Company".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Any company that sent me this far-into the weeds for them ghosted me or replied with un-reasonable terms when I came up with something appropriate. Usually they replied with a whole boiler-plate they had on-hand, but apparently wanted to pretend it was a negotiation, until they didn't. A couple times, the legal department on the other end got shitty with everyone and tried to act like their company had never and would never interact with a contractor who hadn't already signed terms I found exploitative and walked-away from when they wouldn't budge.

    There are plenty of licenses out there that would work, but when you're two-companies removed from the legal offices of the company with the ultimate say, its never as simple as trusting your friend. That said, my limitted experiences with similar situations never involved an insider I was close with, so I mean it when I say I wish you the best of luck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago

    There are plenty of licenses out there that would work

    I know there are plenty, that's why I'm asking for specific recommendations.

    That said, my limitted experiences with similar situations never involved an insider I was close with, so I mean it when I say I wish you the best of luck.

    thanks for the well wishes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    There's ambiguity in the above conversation.

    1. The original post tells me that SWF has made the software and is giving it to ACQ; ACQ is asking SG for modification.

    2. @litchralee@sh.itjust.works seems to understand it this way: ACQ has made the software and is giving it to SWF and wants SG to do further modifications.

    3. The comment that I am replying to, won't make @litchralee@sh.itjust.works (who is assuming [2.]) realise [1.].

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Intriguing. Upon rereading, that is also a plausible interpretation. But I think the issue still stands, but in reverse: if the software is produced by SWF, is licensed to ACQ for use (but not modification), then there will be a need for ACQ (not SG) to negotiate a source-code license with SWF.

    If OP's question is now about what sort of license terms would be workable, that's entirely up to SWF. They would be within their rights to not even answer the phone, once they've completed their delivery per whatever contract they have worth ACQ.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago

    is licensed to ACQ for use (but not modification), then there will be a need for ACQ (not SG) to negotiate a source-code license with SWF.

    yes, the negociation is being done by ACQ. I am giving assistance explaining to ACQ how what they want can be achieved. I am not certain on the specifics on which licence to recommend, so I am coming to the wise people of this community to see what they might know that I am missing. As in "here's a licence I used/saw that could help"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent