[jMyles]

These days, I usually have a recorded sit-down (in person or over the phone) and discuss very specific details with the client and inform them that this recorded conversation will be the basis for the beginning of an agreement.

We then share the recordings with them, along with a written summary of the agreement.

Fortunately we've never had to go to court, but I'm told by my lawyers that this will hold up just fine. It also seems to breed a more organic agreement than a sterile, boilerplate contract.

[joe9]

That's very interesting. Are your clients typically open to this, or do you run into any resistance?

[jMyles]

I haven't yet, but some clients come to me with a contract in hand instead of doing a recording - I surmise these are the ones that are likely to object and I don't usually even ask.

Typically, I'll still sign their boilerplate, but I ask that things like NDA, work-for-hire, and non-compete are either eliminated or toned down such as to still clearly permit unmitigated action in the open source space.

The last time I did a "recorded contract" was over a year ago, which makes me now feel sheepish about saying "these days." :-)

I don't think it will be the last though, and I do highly recommend it.

[raverbashing]

Yes, this sounds like a good idea

Someone might have an objection to a boilerplate contract and this is always too much of a coming/going between lawyers of both parts.

With a personal discussion you can get whatever interests each part and get to an agreement faster.