>Please tell me how one dis-associates the functionality/program from the code? If you mean to differentiate source from object code - I understand that argument.

That is the argument I intended to make.


>However, in the absense of anything written - I would bet the benefit of the doubt would rest with the client.
>

I only disagree on the basis of what I have read. It appears that the law lies with the developer. As I said, I am not the expert.

>I think this is more of an issue of ethics. If I have a client - who is paying >me to do a job - and I know that from his perspective - he feels he owns the >code - and I have not explicitly stated that I would retain title to the code - >I have ceded ownership.

I agree for the most part, but largely, this depends on the client. One of my clients doesn't even know what source code is, only that I need it to get them their program. On the other hand, ifthe client has it in his head that you are building a code base for them that they have the right and ability to modify themselves at a later time, then yes, I believe that the ethical thing to do would be to discuss terms up front.

>To all of a sudden, profit - and in effect - leave the client out - who has >funded the work - is not too cool IMHO. That is a fundemental change in the relationship.

But restating, many clients don't see this as funding a development process, but purchasing a functional program. Most clients wouldn't have the slightest idea of how much ease or difficulty it would take to use part of their code elsewhere.

>I suppose it is an issue of how you conduct your business....

Yes, it is.

FWIW, every contract I have ever signed has given the client rights to the source code. I believe this is a very crucial part of the relationship.