Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Programming Discussion : Is this morally right for a developer to do?

[C2u1234]

Hi,

I am looking for the opinion of a few people because I am not sure what to make of it. I hired a programmer to create 2 custom addons for the e-commerce platform that we use on our website. He created them and they worked great. A month later I find out that he has released them as public addons on his website, with a $600 price difference. Now I was under the impression custom work created for us would only be for us.

I contacted the developer and asked him what the situation was and he said it was because there no agreement in place. It is true there was no agreement but is there not an unwritten rule or something? For example if I hired a web designer to create a template for my website, I wouldn't expect him to go releasing it so everybody could use the same template. Is it not the same with programmers?

Is it my right to release the addons and sell them myself? Because like he said, there was no agreement in place. Of course I am not going to do this. However I do feel its wrong that we have funded development of something that he will continue to profit from while everybody else benefiting at a much cheaper price.

Anyway just wanted to get the opinion of other users as I am not sure who is in the wrong.

[KMyers]

Hello,
Ethical and Morally acceptable - Yes, its just wrong. He should at least return the difference in the rates.

Legally Speaking he did nothing wrong if you did not have some sort of a contract in place saying they were made FOR your company.

[yuriko]

I've hired many programmers and I've been in the same situation before. There is a difference b/w custom work and exclusive custom work.

[Grumps]

That's why contracts are important.

But! While I feel the developer was a bit underhanded in that he did not discuss with you initially about this, but I also feel that you're placing the point of immorality on a wrong subject.
> "However I do feel its wrong that we have funded development of something that he will continue to profit from while everybody else benefiting at a much cheaper price."
There are MANY software where someone funds it and have many many other people profit from it. There are many software where that is the very point of its existence, so other others may benefit from it.
By this act, you have not lost anything, you are in no worse position than before.
Others who benefit on the other hand have gained at a lower cost or increased profit.

Thus, the world is a better place thanks to you. The part which you have been wronged, if at all, is that you weren't consulted before hand as your opinion should have mattered as you own the software as much as the developer does.

[Hoopla-Brad]

If you are that annoyed about it, release the code for free

Next time get some written terms of the agreement.

[WebTonight]

releasing as free would be the ultimate pay back to your developer.

[Mad_matt]

IMO if you paid for it, its your software, you can resell it, or launch it as free.

Im almost in the same boat, i want to hire people to code a site for me as there is nothing available on the market, but the risk of them just releasing it as a $99 script somewhere would kill my site, and make it impossible for me to recover the development costs.

I would be interested to hear from developers and companies that have good ethics and dont do this sort of behaviour.

[HRR1963]

Well I believe that If there are no agreements, and the guy put some copyright in the code, and you release it for free as a payback, he will sue you and you will lose.

[Hoopla-Brad]

Originally Posted by Mad_matt

IMO if you paid for it, its your software, you can resell it, or launch it as free.

Im almost in the same boat, i want to hire people to code a site for me as there is nothing available on the market, but the risk of them just releasing it as a $99 script somewhere would kill my site, and make it impossible for me to recover the development costs.

I would be interested to hear from developers and companies that have good ethics and dont do this sort of behaviour.

One could argue that he/she paid for the time of the developer and not the software itself.

[HRR1963]

Originally Posted by Hoopla-Brad

One could argue that he/she paid for the time of the developer and not the software itself.

Well said. That is likely what would happen in a court.

[twhiting9275]

Originally Posted by WebTonight

releasing as free would be the ultimate pay back to your developer.

Indeed. This would seriously teach them a lesson.

Originally Posted by Mad_matt

IMO if you paid for it, its your software, you can resell it, or launch it as free.

Yes and no.
If there was no agreement in place giving exclusivity, then no, it's not the purchaser's software, and both can release, or sell it. The purchaser has pretty much no leg to stand on. HOWEVER, neither does the seller if the purchaser decided to go out and release it for free.

Morals have no play in business, nor do ethics. I'm not saying it's a great idea to do this, or to pull something like this, but the bottom line of business is success. Finances are the ultimate judge of success.

Is this right? Not so much. I wouldn't do it myself, and most professionals wouldn't. HOWEVER, there's really not much you can do, other than, as someone else said, release the code to everyone for free.

[Harzem]

It is ethically very wrong. If someone pays for a software development, they own the ownership and reseller rights, unless agreed upon otherwise. That developer wronged you, and you have the right to release the same code for free, or dispute the payment you made to them. If he is using the "no contract" hand, you can use it to get back at him as well.

[richardhay]

There is a difference b/w custom work and exclusive custom work.

That's why contracts are important.

Yes and yes to the above two points. As a developer, I always require contracts for custom work, especially for code development. The contract specifies who "owns" the code, what rights the owner has, and, for most projects, when the ownership changes from me to the buyer.

Here, without a contract in place, the developer isn't in the wrong by reusing the code. You paid him or her to develop it, yes, but you didn't pay for exclusive and sole rights to the code (or at least you didn't have a contract in place that specified that). I wouldn't personally have done this, but I also wouldn't be in this situation, as there would have been a contract in place.

releasing as free would be the ultimate pay back to your developer.

Personally, I wouldn't do this. Without a contract, there isn't anything that gives you the right to or the right not to release the code, but I don't know if that is a battle that I'd want to fight. Rather, I would "vote with my feet," by not using the developer again, and would certainly learn of the importance of contracts--even for small code development or design projects.

Have a great weekend!

Richard

[bear]

Originally Posted by Harzem

It is ethically very wrong. If someone pays for a software development, they own the ownership and reseller rights, unless agreed upon otherwise.

I disagree with that statement, but will say that ethically it should have been discussed first. If exclusive, much higher price. If not, lower price but the dev retains the ability/right to sell more copies.

Without something in writing to say it's exclusive, there is no legal obligation to remain monogamous with the code. Our contracts specify the client owns the completed site (as in one copy to use), but not any exclusive rights to completed scripts unless specifically stated they alone own it.

[FrankLaszlo]

The only time I would ever think about reselling custom written software is if it was explained up front. Sometimes I'll work out a deal with clients who cannot afford the entire development cost. Give them a price break (say 50%) and I maintain resell rights.

Otherwise, the client ALWAYS owns the full rights to the code to resell or not.

Its ethically wrong to do it any other way, but unfortunately probably not illegal unless an agreement was signed ahead of time.