Costing App Development and Source Code

[squatman]

Hi there,

I'm trying to quote for a client for the creation of a WinForms application.

Is it a common practice that I'd just supply them with the final app and if they wanted to source code for anyone else to further develop, that should be a lot more money?

Hope this is the right place for a query like this.

Thank you.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's a good place for that question. I'm interested to see what people have to say about this.

[Delaney]

It will depends if you can re-use part or all of the code of the application and if you can easily sell the application to someone else or not.

If you can reuse part of the code, you can drop a bit the price.

Don't forget also to quote the maintenance, the warranty and the hotline.

I cannot speak for just software as I design mostly hardware. For hardware the basic principle of the cost is the following :

• Development of the design (include justification and sizing and documentation)
• Set up of the hardware (include prototype and test)
• Validation test
• Manufacturing of the hardware (include acceptance test)

all phase include documentation

for each phase, I evaluate the time of work x hourly rate and material needed , subcontracting needed.

Because much of the client need is very specific, my clients pay for the whole (95% of the cases) but sometimes I drop part of the development in the cost to keep the industrial property to myself so I am able to sell the design to someone else.

I guess software development is close (beside the manufacturing part)

[dilettante]

I suspect that it depends on the client.

If you were creating something for an individual or very small company they might not have much interest in the source code. Most companies of any size probably have standard contract language that includes the source code as a deliverable item.

"Work for hire" legal precedent probably doesn't even allow source code to be held hostage for more money.

[jmcilhinney]

I would suggest that charging more to hand over the source code is reasonable. If you provide them with the compiled application but keep the source code then that suggests that they will come back to you for ongoing support. You will charge them for that support so you can charge them less for the initial application. The extra cost for the source code would not be as much as the support, because you don't have to do the extra work, but it should be some fraction thereof.

[Arnoutdv]

I find this hard to answer.
What if you use some nice libraries you have developed during a period of time.
The development time of the application can thus be shorter and the cost for the application can be reduced.
If they want to source you can also put your libraries in DLLs and hand them the source of the main application and the compiled libraries.

[ray20]

Source typically costs more than no-source with one caveat. Make sure you are willing and able to fully support what you deliver. Nothing is more frustrating to a client than after paying for an app, needing a fix and the developer is incapable of making it in a timely manor. If you're not in it for the long-haul, sometimes giving the source to the client without a premium makes sense.

[techgnome]

It should all come down to what's in the contract. Are they even entitled to the source code? And if they are, what are they allowed to do with it? A couple of lifetimes ago, there was a client that we worrked with that felt they were entitled to our source code because they essentually funded the R&D of the application. We didn't want them running off with it and developing their own system. So, to make everyone happy, the contract specifically stated that when we cut them a release we'd cut a copy of the code at that point in time, place it in escrow for a period of 2 years to be used for auditing and support only. At the end of the 2 years, that version of the code would be destroyed by the escrow company.
So I'd look at what the contract says... if it isn't mentioned at all... might be time for a re-negotiation.


-tg

[2kaud]

Who owns/will own the copyright? By default the copyright is with the developer unless contracts state otherwise. That's why say Windows is licensed when bought and is not 'owned' as such. Who's going to 'own' the application? Who's going to 'own' the source? What 'rights' to the application are you selling?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Yes, it would be normal for supplying the source code to cost more than just supplying the compiled code.

If you own the source code you can resell it to others and get maintenance from anyone you sell to.

How much more is more difficult to answer but for me, I would want it to be at least the maintenance cost for a year

[dilettante]

Who owns/will own the copyright? By default the copyright is with the developer unless contracts state otherwise. That's why say Windows is licensed when bought and is not 'owned' as such. Who's going to 'own' the application? Who's going to 'own' the source? What 'rights' to the application are you selling?

Wrong. Exactly backwards!

If a work is made for hire, the employer or other person
for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner of the
copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written
agreement to the contrary.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

[jpbro]

Wrong. Exactly backwards!

I imagine copyright laws vary from country to country. It would be best to seek proper legal advice from a lawyer in your country if you don't want any unwelcome surprises.