If one client commissioned it, chances are others will find it valuable as well. Often, developers will retain ownership so that they can exploit later opportunities. Alternatively, they might charge more in exchange for relinquishing rights to the work.
There might be a number of reasons for this. The most common one would be leverage. If part of the application you develop has broad applicability, the you might be able to retarget substantial parts of the solution to other clients. This would achieve one of two things: Shorter time to market which would imply a lowest cost for the client, or on fixed bid projects, bigger margins for you.
Another case could be to protect yourself. Your example itself is somewhat of a case study. You give the client the full rights and source to the work you do for them, but you retain the rights to your libraries, they pay extra, etc...
Depending how the contract is actually worded, if you use "your" libraries as part of the final deliverable, wouldn't that be work you actually create for them. If you did not include those libraries, would they still have a complete product. If not, then is not your library part of the work you did for them? Why should they pay extra for that? Lawyers love that kind of arguments. Of course, if you have friendly and satisfied clients, then this would not likely be an issue, but sometimes things don't go so well.
If your contract says something like "client has a right to the code, to do what they want with, but you retain your rights to do what you want with the code", then there is no gray zone. As with everything legal, hire a good lawyer.
The earlier answers have it right and are both right. There are two basic reasons:
First, as you build experience in a particular area, you can accumulate knowledge across multiple customers and be even more valuable to future customers, provided that you are able to reuse what you developed in the first place.
Second, it is not always 100% clear where intellectual property rights begin and end. If you grab some clever code snippet from the last project for the next one, are you reusing “too much” so as to infringe the rights you gave the first customer? Best defense against a customer coming back and claiming infringement is not to give them the ability to do so in the first place.
One further point. Why would your customers need to have legal ownership of the code anyway? They can get all the legal rights they need to use your code by having a license. Having ownership on top of that does nothing for their ability to use the code and it prevents you from re-using it. (Of course the counterpoint to that is that they may want to prevent you from making “their” concepts available to a competitor if theirs, but there are other ways to address that.)
No body has mentioned this yet, but I always assumed companies did this to make it very difficult to hire anyone else to make program enhancements later on. This is obviously especially true if source code is not provided.
Enhancements can often be charged at a premium later for the actual amount of time the change would take to implement. I have seen such requests as adding extra datagrid filtering costing thousands.
发布评论
评论（6）
如果一位客户委托它，其他人很可能也会发现它很有价值。 通常，开发商会保留所有权，以便他们可以利用以后的机会。 或者，他们可能会收取更高的费用，以换取放弃作品的权利。
If one client commissioned it, chances are others will find it valuable as well. Often, developers will retain ownership so that they can exploit later opportunities. Alternatively, they might charge more in exchange for relinquishing rights to the work.
造成这种情况的原因可能有很多。 最常见的一种是杠杆。 如果您开发的应用程序的一部分具有广泛的适用性，那么您可能能够将解决方案的大部分内容重新定位到其他客户。 这将实现以下两件事之一：缩短上市时间，这意味着客户的成本最低，或者在固定投标项目上，为您带来更大的利润。
另一种情况可能是保护自己。 你的例子本身就是一个案例研究。 您向客户授予您为他们所做的工作的全部权利和来源，但您保留对您的图书馆的权利，他们支付额外费用等...
取决于合同的实际措辞，如果您将“您的”图书馆用作最终交付成果的一部分，这难道不是您实际为他们创建的工作吗？ 如果你不包括这些库，他们还会有一个完整的产品吗？ 如果没有，那么您的图书馆不就是您为他们所做的工作的一部分吗？ 他们为什么要为此支付额外费用？ 律师喜欢这种争论。 当然，如果您有友好且满意的客户，那么这可能不会成为问题，但有时事情进展得不太顺利。
如果您的合同规定诸如“客户有权使用代码，做他们想做的事，但您保留使用代码做您想做的事的权利”，那么就不存在灰色地带。 与所有合法的事情一样，请聘请一位好律师。
There might be a number of reasons for this. The most common one would be leverage. If part of the application you develop has broad applicability, the you might be able to retarget substantial parts of the solution to other clients. This would achieve one of two things: Shorter time to market which would imply a lowest cost for the client, or on fixed bid projects, bigger margins for you.
Another case could be to protect yourself. Your example itself is somewhat of a case study. You give the client the full rights and source to the work you do for them, but you retain the rights to your libraries, they pay extra, etc...
Depending how the contract is actually worded, if you use "your" libraries as part of the final deliverable, wouldn't that be work you actually create for them. If you did not include those libraries, would they still have a complete product. If not, then is not your library part of the work you did for them? Why should they pay extra for that? Lawyers love that kind of arguments. Of course, if you have friendly and satisfied clients, then this would not likely be an issue, but sometimes things don't go so well.
If your contract says something like "client has a right to the code, to do what they want with, but you retain your rights to do what you want with the code", then there is no gray zone. As with everything legal, hire a good lawyer.
我想这是为了保护他们在重用代码（有意或无意）时免遭起诉。
I imagine it is to protect them from being sued if they ever do reuse code (on purpose or not).
前面的答案都是对的，而且都是对的。 有两个基本原因：
首先，当您在特定领域积累经验时，您可以积累多个客户的知识，并且对未来的客户更有价值，前提是您能够重用您最初开发的内容.
其次，知识产权的起点和终点并不总是 100% 清楚。 如果您从上一个项目中获取一些巧妙的代码片段用于下一个项目，您是否会重复使用“太多”，从而侵犯您赋予第一个客户的权利？ 防止客户回访并声称侵权的最佳防御措施并不是一开始就赋予他们这样做的能力。
还有一点。 为什么您的客户需要拥有代码的合法所有权？ 他们可以通过获得许可证来获得使用您的代码所需的所有合法权利。 除此之外，拥有所有权对他们使用代码的能力没有任何帮助，而且会阻止您重复使用它。 （当然，与之相反的是，他们可能想阻止你将“他们的”概念提供给竞争对手（如果他们是他们的），但还有其他方法可以解决这个问题。）
The earlier answers have it right and are both right. There are two basic reasons:
First, as you build experience in a particular area, you can accumulate knowledge across multiple customers and be even more valuable to future customers, provided that you are able to reuse what you developed in the first place.
Second, it is not always 100% clear where intellectual property rights begin and end. If you grab some clever code snippet from the last project for the next one, are you reusing “too much” so as to infringe the rights you gave the first customer? Best defense against a customer coming back and claiming infringement is not to give them the ability to do so in the first place.
One further point. Why would your customers need to have legal ownership of the code anyway? They can get all the legal rights they need to use your code by having a license. Having ownership on top of that does nothing for their ability to use the code and it prevents you from re-using it. (Of course the counterpoint to that is that they may want to prevent you from making “their” concepts available to a competitor if theirs, but there are other ways to address that.)
万一他们写出下一个谷歌。
In case they write the next Google.
目前还没有人提到这一点，但我一直认为公司这样做是为了让以后很难雇用其他人来增强程序。 如果未提供源代码，这显然尤其如此。
增强功能通常会在以后根据实施更改所需的实际时间收取额外费用。 我见过这样的请求，例如添加额外的数据网格过滤，成本高达数千美元。
No body has mentioned this yet, but I always assumed companies did this to make it very difficult to hire anyone else to make program enhancements later on. This is obviously especially true if source code is not provided.
Enhancements can often be charged at a premium later for the actual amount of time the change would take to implement. I have seen such requests as adding extra datagrid filtering costing thousands.