Prev: Re: Re: Mission Creep - Was Re: The new US Army APC the Stinger Next: Re: Re: Mission Creep

Re: Re: Mission Creep - Was Re: The new US Army APC the Stinger

From: Derk Groeneveld <derk@c...>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:05:29 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Re: Mission Creep - Was Re: The new US Army APC the Stinger



On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Laserlight wrote:

> > And now that he has the main contract, he can charge
> > anything he wants for the upgrades.
>
> Upgrades can go out for bid just like anything else.	Documentation is
> owned by the buyer, not the contractor.  It may be fiscally
> advantageous to go back to the original source, even if he's
> overcharging you...but you can always make it clear that it'll be
> remembered on the next bid.

But in the day of automation, paper copies/pdf files etc may be owned by
the buyer, whereas SOURCE files (e.g. word, framemaker, publisher, sgml,
datamodules etc - anything lending itself to easy adaptation) could be
owned by the seller... All depending on the contract you sign.

Cheers,

Prev: Re: Re: Mission Creep - Was Re: The new US Army APC the Stinger Next: Re: Re: Mission Creep