>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.

Is there any specific statute you - or anybody else can cite????

>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.

This sounds like situational ethics to me..... Basically, what you are saying is that "What the client does not know...won't hurt them" - It is sort of the don't ask, don't tell policy of software development. What separates the client who knows what source code is from the one who does not? Knowledge. Playing off the ignorance of a client is not too cool IMHO. I am not implying this is what you - or other folks involved in the thread do. It is just my opinion of how good business is conducted... Judging by how you write your agreements - you appear to be one of the good guys :)

>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.

To be iron clad - it needs to be in writing. And, just because a client happens to be ignorant of what source code is or is not - does not absolve the developer of not having to do the right thing. I for one, always tell cleints up front - they own the code. If at some point in the future - they want to use another developer to make mods - they can. This in effect - nets me more business.

>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.

Very cool...