3

About a year ago, our company hired a development company to build a mobile app we had been longing to do, but never got the time to develop.

With previous bad luck with outsourcing, we got it on writing that they would keep all development inhouse, and they introduced us to the programmers that were to handle the task.

Things started out well, but suddently around 4 months later, we felt a huge drop in quality, chaotic communication with the development company and a huge rise in activity from polish and ukranian user on our development server.

We later found out via reddit that the developers assigned to our project had been fired, and we were not being told who took the project since.

Long story short, we are dragging them to court, since not only does it seem clear that they choose to outsource the project, they are now 4 months overdue from the deadline.

In this, we demand to get access to the GitHub repository, since it would clearly show in the history how the source code have been handled, and by who.

In conclusion, they state that: "No developer would ever give the client access to their GitHub history."

It is this statement, that I would like to run past you, and ask if you agree with. It's our strong conviction that it doesn't make sense, but to be sure, we'd like to hear you programmers out.

In our contract, it's stated that all material created related to this project is owned by us, but they claim that GitHub information is not related.

As a note, we're not asking for legal help from you, nor anything where you will be enrolled in our case. We are simply testing the statement, and listening to if there is any reason a client should not be allowed to look into the Git repository on request. (We do have access to source code, but not to the repository.)

closed as primarily opinion-based by Bart van Ingen Schenau, Blrfl, user40980, enderland, gnat Jun 19 '15 at 13:24

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    I can see it being argued both ways, so I am voting to close as 'primarily opinion based'. Given that, to me that statement raises a big red flag that they are trying to hide something. – Bart van Ingen Schenau Jun 19 '15 at 9:46
  • I understand your vote, but I was hoping for a "Is this industry standard yes/no" kind of answer. – Nils Munch Jun 19 '15 at 9:47
  • 2
    We do have access to the repositories of our outsourced projects. So that's definitely nothing like 'no developer would ever...'. But to be true, we learned the hard way to make this part of all agreements. From a legal point in your case this may be a matter of interpretation of the actual contract, 'all material' may be seen as 'results only' or really everything. In any case if it's needed as evidence for a law suit a lawyer may be able to get it even if it's not seen as part of the contract. – thorsten müller Jun 19 '15 at 10:02