Source files?

I've managed to get inbetween an arugment about what is typical
in site design these days involving deliverables.

If a designer is paid to come up with a design that involves
something like flash, will they give the client the source
files or just the swf file?

I know this might lead into a debate (just like the open/closed
source one) but I want to know whats industry standard?

I'll start with my take...
I've been running web sites since '93 and I've always told the
developer up front that I want the source files. In the early days
some had a problem with it and others didn't. About 5 years ago
it seemed typical for the designers to charge a bit extra or redo
their bid when the source issue was brought up.

Recently I've delt with three types. One just sends the source
files along with the deliverables. The other sill provide it if
asked for and the third only will give out source if its in the
contract.

So what is typical or is there a typical?

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com

"Tim Hogard" <thogard (AT) abnormal (DOT) com> wrote

I've managed to get inbetween an arugment about what is typical
in site design these days involving deliverables.

IMO, every single piece of everything that is done as part of a
work-for-hire is a deliverable.

--
Karl Core
Hell To Pay, Baltimore Hardcore: http://www.eightninethree.com

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:38:09 +0000 (UTC), thogard (AT) abnormal (DOT) com (Tim
Hogard) wrote:

I'll start with my take...
I've been running web sites since '93 and I've always told the
developer up front that I want the source files. In the early days
some had a problem with it and others didn't. About 5 years ago
it seemed typical for the designers to charge a bit extra or redo
their bid when the source issue was brought up.

Recently I've delt with three types. One just sends the source
files along with the deliverables. The other sill provide it if
asked for and the third only will give out source if its in the
contract.

So what is typical or is there a typical?

As far as software development in general is concerned (not specifically
for the web) it is typical to specify who owns the source in the
contract. (Actually it's probably even more typical to forget to do
that, and argue about it afterwards ...) If it's one-off software, the
customer often gets ownership of the source, while if it's a customised
product the supplier usually does. But various joint-ownership
constructions are also possible: for example that the customer has the
rights to modify the software for his own purposes, but not to pass it
on to a third party. Escrow contracts are also common, but that of
course is only worth it for big projects.

If a supplier makes a bid based on sole ownership of the source, and on
the assumption that there will be maintenance income in the future, it's
quite normal to raise the price if the customer wants ownership of the
source. It's probably best to specify what you want when you send out
the invitation to tender.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/