Comment Source code is useless - another PoV (Score 1) 587
It's interesting to read the responses to the "source code is useless" comment... mostly concerning OSS/bug-fixing and so on.
Actually, I didn't hear the talk but my interpretation of this comment was a more commercial one. Source code is obviously very important, but often (especially in the last few years after open/proprietary software has become technology-flavour-of-the-month with investors) given too much weight, especially in disputes.
Let me give an example project that I was involved in.
I was team leader of a group of programmers delivering a transactional internet application on a very complex software base including WinNT, Solaris, Java, Corba, J++, XML (let's not talk about why there were so many redundant technologies involved, it will just make me angry...) when a "dispute" arose concerning payment of large amounts of money from the client to ourselves. As often happened in those halcyon days, the client was backed by investors with big pockets and little brains. The dispute got to the point where we refused to develop any more code without payment of current arrears and some payment in advance, and they refused to pay without the source code that we had produced so far - *although* the contract stated clearly that source code would be handed over only on completion of the entire contract.
It was pretty obvious what these guys were planning - break the contract, take the code, and finish it on the cheap with the remaining $ that they hadn't blown already. The concern from our management was that they would be able to get their hands on our IP which might be worth more than what we had managed to collect from them so far.
I knew these guys pretty well, having worked with them for months together in the same office. I knew roughly what their time and money budget to completion was, and that it would cost way more to finish. More importantly, I *knew* how ugly some of that code was, because we had just finished a functionality push and needed to bullet-proof some of the underlying architecture or the thing would fall over. And... I strongly suspected that our client already had a few defectors in his pocket, and quite possibly already *had* the source code but was looking to legimate it.
So... I suggested to management that they don't worry too much about it. Even with that source code, there was no way they could find a new team to understand the project and the code base and get it to completion in time.
In the end... they cut and run, they never paid, they somehow got a copy of the source, and... they ran out of money before the new guys could finish it.
So, the source code which was the focus of the legal threats flying here and there turned out to be useless, in this case.
Anyone had a similar experience?
Actually, I didn't hear the talk but my interpretation of this comment was a more commercial one. Source code is obviously very important, but often (especially in the last few years after open/proprietary software has become technology-flavour-of-the-month with investors) given too much weight, especially in disputes.
Let me give an example project that I was involved in.
I was team leader of a group of programmers delivering a transactional internet application on a very complex software base including WinNT, Solaris, Java, Corba, J++, XML (let's not talk about why there were so many redundant technologies involved, it will just make me angry...) when a "dispute" arose concerning payment of large amounts of money from the client to ourselves. As often happened in those halcyon days, the client was backed by investors with big pockets and little brains. The dispute got to the point where we refused to develop any more code without payment of current arrears and some payment in advance, and they refused to pay without the source code that we had produced so far - *although* the contract stated clearly that source code would be handed over only on completion of the entire contract.
It was pretty obvious what these guys were planning - break the contract, take the code, and finish it on the cheap with the remaining $ that they hadn't blown already. The concern from our management was that they would be able to get their hands on our IP which might be worth more than what we had managed to collect from them so far.
I knew these guys pretty well, having worked with them for months together in the same office. I knew roughly what their time and money budget to completion was, and that it would cost way more to finish. More importantly, I *knew* how ugly some of that code was, because we had just finished a functionality push and needed to bullet-proof some of the underlying architecture or the thing would fall over. And... I strongly suspected that our client already had a few defectors in his pocket, and quite possibly already *had* the source code but was looking to legimate it.
So... I suggested to management that they don't worry too much about it. Even with that source code, there was no way they could find a new team to understand the project and the code base and get it to completion in time.
In the end... they cut and run, they never paid, they somehow got a copy of the source, and... they ran out of money before the new guys could finish it.
So, the source code which was the focus of the legal threats flying here and there turned out to be useless, in this case.
Anyone had a similar experience?
