Slashdot Mirror
NY Bill Would Provide Tax Credit For Open Source Contributors
An anonymous reader writes: For many years, the open source software community has made the distinction between "free as in freedom" (the software can be used or modified as the user sees fit) and "free as in beer" (the software is available at no cost). Some have added a third type of free: "free as in puppy". Like a puppy, adopting open source software has ongoing cost. What many people don't consider is that developing open source software has a cost, too. Many developers purchase extra hardware for testing or pay for code hosting, a website, etc. A pending bill in the New York Senate aims to help offset those costs. The bill, sponsored by Senator Daniel Squadron (D-26th) and co-sponsored by Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D-36th), would provide a tax credit of 20% of "expenses associated with the development of open source and free software", up to an annual maximum of $200. Based on a 2006 report by the Center for American Progress, this bill appears to be the first of its kind introduced to a state legislature.
I'd rather they require that any software developed at taxpayer expense be released as open source.
I'd rather they require that any software developed at taxpayer expense be released as open source.
That's not as clear of a metric as one might expect. We have lots of research efforts now that are jointly funded by government and private funds; would they need to be released as open source? And how do you dictate the release schedule for the code? Does it need to be updated regularly or can it just be released when there is something relating to it published somewhere? And who will host it, for how long? Will the authors be held responsible for making sure that their code compiles on other peoples' hardware?
It's a good idea but the execution of it is not trivial. I can think of plenty of software in my field of work that has been at least partially funded by the government that I would love to see released but some of the above matters make it impossible or impractical to get a good release of it out publicly.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Meanwhile companies that contribute to open source can write down the entire expense of development including salaries, benefits, software, facility, and equipment.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
$200? Why bother with the paperwork? Only, now there will be more paperwork, as the state spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement the program and add the little checkbox to a form somewhere.
My real take is even more cynical: this will be sold to the public as "$200 for independent open source software developers" but the final version will have a mysterious change in it that allows corporations with thousands of machines running some little piece of open source code to take a couple of million-dollar tax credits for "contributing to open source". In fact, the presser the politicians put out is little more than a sales brochure: "I'm offering up a tax credit for open source contributors (wink wink) - please contact my office (write a big check) if you want to know more (get in on the tax break for your company)."
The proposal sure is generous... My tax-bill from NY for 2015 is thousands of dollars, being able to lower it by the whopping $200 is not going to move the needle. Especially, if claiming the deduction is going to increase the accountant's fee...
Yay! Let's give tax-credits to dog-owners as well.
The whole idea is pure vote-pandering — people work on open-source (and get dogs) for fun...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't know about US tax laws, but aren't there some tax laws regarding work- or study-related costs like the situation the vast majority of open source developers is in. I don't know any FOSS developer who isn't either an IT worker or an IT student.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I accept all the responsibilities of owning that puppy. I don't expect my neighbor, or a person in another city to help me.
Hey now, that's personal responsibility talk. We don't cater to such nonsense round these parts.
You take your "I can take care of myself without leeching off others" and mosey on down the road. We here are proud of requiring others to hand over their money whether they want to or not so we can live the good life without having to worry bout none of that fancy responsibility stuff.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
> I'd rather they require that any software developed at taxpayer expense be released as open source.
Of course you would, Timothy. Just like your whiney demand for Microsoft to make their patents free (effectively subsidizing their competition). Children like free stuff.
Taxpayers paid for it. Releasing it as open source makes it available to non-taxpayers (e.g. other states/countries). Keeping it closed source helps ensure that the benefits of that software are retained within the polis that funded it.
> It's a good idea but the execution of it is not trivial.
100% agreed. The biggest thing that jumps out at me, in terms of making that a -requirement-, is that 95% of software projects involve adding to existing systems, not writing an entire system from scratch. Even for a brand-new agency, you're going to use Active Directory or something similar, not author your own AD from scratch.
At my last job, I spent three years writing software for a government agency in an environment which included a big GPLv3 system I was responsible for, which stored all of its data in Microsoft SQL server and ran on Windows, using the Microsoft database driver. It interfaced with legacy Scantron systems, using Scantron's API code under their license. Being non-stupid, I used a lot of libraries and copy-pasted functions that were under GPLv2, CC, and BSD licenses. There is no license that all the software I wrote could be released under. I did release a lot of it under GPLv3, but a -requirement- that it all be released under any specific type of license would mean we simply couldn't do the project at all, the code would never have been written and we'd still be stuck with paper and pencil Scantrons for everything.
Look forward to even more claims that open source is does nothing to promote women, lesbians, blacks, Irish, dog fuckers or what ever.
If you raise a puppy as a public service you might get your neighbors to pay at least some of the costs.
One could argue that developing something useful as open source is also a public service, although I don't think this bill is the answer.
Do something special in taxes just for this class and me. Next thing, we have complicated State and Fed tax codes. Just like we do.
Additionally, these sorts of credits which seem good in priniciple (giving an additional incentive to behaviour we thing is "good" like getting exercise or promoting children's education) often do not in fact result in a much increase in that behaviour, but rather just divert money to people who would be doing these things even without the incentives. When sold as benifits to the poor downtroden masses, often they end up being benifficial mostly to upper middle class taxpayers.
Then there is the difficulty of keeping track of all of them. How much of a cost are they to the tax system? How many of them are there? Since they do not apear as line-items in annual budgets, they tend to make it more difficult to judge how much money we are spending in different areas.
I'm open sourcing my program to consecutively list all integers from 1 t 100.
I've worked in 4 government agencies. Trust me, you don't want ~80% of the code. Absolute garbage.
Hold your horses, though, lolbertarians. I walked away from 4 private sector coding jobs without even a single function in my notebook. They should've been embarrassed.
The idea makes sense - as if that had anything to do with the tax laws.
Proprietary software vendors are deeply embedded in our political system.
And they might lobby against a tax break for open source.
If enough schools used open source to result in a demonstrated tax saving,
you might have something to talk about.
As it stands, the big boys control the market. They control the software
that employers want to see on a resume. They control the kickbacks,
GOOD LUCK!
I first read that as "Bill Nye."
Great, now I can finally quit my day job !
But what if I offer you $200? Now are you willing to further complicate an already over-complicated tax code?
As long as I make money preparing taxes for other people,
there is no such thing as "an over-complicated tax code".
BTW - Only 28 days left to file ;)
You take your "I can take care of myself without leeching off others" and mosey on down the road.
I assume that you paved that road yourself and didn't "leech off others" to do it for you ;-)
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
Anybody else do the double take about "Bill NYE Would Provide Tax Credit For Open Source Contributors". Gotta love brain noise.
The road benefits all. That is not leeching.
Leeching is when you get to be as fat as you want, smoke as much as you want, do as many drugs as you want and expect, nay, demand everyone else around you be forced to pay to protect you from your own doings.
The very opposite of what the OP said, not expect anyone else to care for the animal they have taken in.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Beware of greeks bearing gifts. This sounds like step one for a state that has the highest taxes in the country to set the precident that open source contrubutuons are something to which tax oversight might apply. first they give you a tax credit, identify the taxable opportunity, then tax the crap out of it.
Great idea, having the Chinese and Russians poring over the F-35's avionics.
If that's not giving you nightmares, imagine them getting their filthy commie hands on something that actually works.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And if you code the project professionally, even as an individual under the blanket of an LLC, you can too! Hazaa!!!!
There's no evil scheme here. The door swings both ways.
What, the science guy?
Can we do like Hillary Clinton did with her emails? Print the source code out on paper; release them a few pages at a time over a few years; and black out large portions of it after swearing that it didn't exist in the first place? Can we leave out whole functions or classes of objects while insisting they were private and only used to schedule our yoga classes or daughter's wedding? Can we make it so the only way certain people can get the code is with an FBI investigation and subpoenas from Congress?
Only if you formed the business with the intent and eventually ability to make a profit. If you don't eventually show that profit or prove that you had a solid business plan that simply didn't come together, you'll get audited, fined (because it was a hobby not a business), and have the chance of being tossed in jail for tax fraud. Intent matters, but the big guys can lump in those costs against the profits from another section of their business.
The door swings both ways, but you have to be a heavy weight to push it open as the wind is constantly blowing against it from the other side.