Obviously, modifying the software in-house counts as a derivative work, and I'm okay with that - just not with the idea that customers would then onsell or give away the modified product to other potential customers.
Just selling source code and not granting any license at all would probably accomplish that in practice if not strictly by law. In-house modifications are arguably fair use, and even if not it's basically unenforceable law anyway.
Personally I'd want to go one step further. I'd like to allow (and encourage) distribution of modifications (for free or for a charge), to people who already purchased the original.
I was thinking recently that I'd like something similar to this, though I wouldn't call it a "libre" license. The idea is that anyone who purchased the software would get full source code and a license to make any changes without restriction, and they could distribute the software, with or without changes, to anyone who purchased a license. Furthermore, they could resell licenses. So if the base license cost $10, they could make changes and sell the modified software for $15, as long as they turned over $10 to me for each license they sold.
Incidentally, it seems to me that such a license is sufficiently "free", and could actually be more useful than traditional free software, because it allows people who make modifications the ability to make money.
i was told by a mortgage broker that it is illegal for the mortgage company to make interest on the money they're holding in escrow.
Sure they "make interest on the money". In fact, you're the one paying it. If you didn't have to pay that money into escrow, it'd go toward your principal, and lower the interest you pay on the loan.
don't forget your transaction costs!!! How much does it cost YOU to process a cheque?
Well, I'm an accountant in the USA, and it takes about three times as much effort to process a debit card purchase as it does to process a check. Credit card purchases are a little easier, only takes about twice as much effort to process them.
And that's only if the client has kept good records. With checks, they usually do, and if not they get an image of the check on their bank statement. But with credit cards they usually don't record the transaction at the time they make it, so they have to go back later to do this. And with debit cards if they didn't record the transaction in their check register at the time they made it (which they invariably don't), then their account is out of balance too.
Now, the fact that you spelled it "cheque" and "labour" makes me think you're not living in the USA. From what I've heard Europe has much better electronic payment processing than the US.
In fact, a good way to tell the legitimacy of the seller, especially if they were a "private" seller, is to see if they would accept a USPO money order.
As a seller, I used to love the USPS money order, and gave a discount (I think it was around 5%) to anyone who paid with it. I'd cash in the money order while dropping the package off at the post office (which was right down the street from my house). Cleared instantly, no chargebacks, no bounced checks, no need to go to the bank *before* shipping. It was well worth giving away the discount, which was more than the what I'd have paid in paypal fees.
Which part of Alpha did these guys not understand? It is, by definition, "Not Ready Yet"!
I always took "Alpha" to imply feature-complete.
I think it's kind of sad that Jimmy put something out and said, "Here's what it kinda will look like, and sorta how it will work," and people's first reaction is, "It's not a fully-functional working product? What a piece of crap."
Personally I think it's crap not because it doesn't work, but because there aren't any original good ideas to it. Mini articles are cool, but not at all original, and the idea that they're going to populate them solely from user contributions rather than taking them from a free content source or buying them from somewhere is dumb. Sure, rating results doesn't work, but again, not at all original, and probably not that useful unless and until there are millions of people using the thing. Then there's the whole Myspace/Facebook/whatever stuff. Not original, not well integrated into the rest of the site, not interesting to me, and not a good idea in the first place (to integrate the two).
Wales says "It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine." Fine, but how does Jimmy expect to get people to build a search engine for his for-profit business? There are answers to that question, but I don't see where Jimmy has hit on any of them. The Alpha that launched today doesn't seem geared to developers. Sure, when Wikipedia was launched it sucked. But at least I could edit it and make it not suck! And anything I added could be used by anywhere in the world, not just Jimmy Wales or Bomis. What can I do with Search Wikia? Add to the mini-articles? Lame.
"transmitter" and theres the rub - the "transmitters" are the same people making the proprietary software, eg, they only let you talk to them using their own software.
Last time I looked (which was admittedly about 5 years ago), that wasn't true. There were transmitters out there who would transmit returns created by third party software.
That is what needs to get out of the way. The right way would be for the IRS to make available an electronic communcation method that could be used for direct transmission from individuals filing their *own* tax data.
It'd be nice, I guess, and the Internet would certainly facilitate the logistics of that. But it's not a particularly big stumbling block - transmission is cheap and easy, you could probably get it down to less than the cost of a stamp.
The hard part is building the software in the first place.
The tricky part is, that the individual(s) running the software would have to do that, unless the developer of this software wants to set up servers and systems for e-filing, which they probably would then have to charge for.
So? Free software refers to freedom, not to price. I'd rather pay a couple bucks a return (that's all it should cost) to e-file software using open source software than e-file for free using proprietary software.
The big PIA, is that an individual cannot automatically electronically communicate their own tax return data directly to the IRS.
I guess, but this doesn't have anything to do with open source. In fact, it makes open source software more likely to be built, since it provides a business model for those who write the software.
Yes, preparers can choose to warranty their work, and some do.
Oh yeah, and just to be clear, I'm talking about tax preparers, those who actually sign your return. Taxes prepared using tax software is almost always considered "self-prepared", and correspondingly usually comes with no guarantee.
Yes, preparers can choose to warranty their work, and some do.
Frankly, I don't know any who don't, and I would think this is covered by an implied warranty barring an explicit disclaimer. But I'm not an expert on the UCC, so take that with a heaping tablespoon of salt.
My point was that as far as the IRS is concerned, it's the taxpayer who's on the hook for any errors of substance. As I understand it, the preparer is responsible for the arithmetic.
The taxpayer is responsible for the arithmetic also, as the taxpayer signed the return. However, presumably the tax preparer would be responsible for reimbursing the taxpayer for such a penalty under an implied warranty (but see my note about the UCC above). It's also possible the taxpayers penalties could be abated due to "reasonable cause".
This is all besides the preparer penalties which the IRS can choose to assess directly upon the tax preparer.
I wonder if I should put a circular 230 disclaimer on all of this. Well, just in case: this post was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Because of the lack of cooperation of the IRS and the API.
Huh? If you want to create e-file software, you use the API provided in Publication 1346, you file a form 8633, and pass the IRS Assurance Testing Process. There doesn't appear to be any IRS limitation barring open source software from this exact same process used by proprietary software developers.
I'm going to have to side with the IRS that an open source application is not suited to this environment as there's no accountability on checking of it's data and allowing any random person's code to transmit to the IRS could cause hell into the system.
I don't see a problem with open source software, as long as someone vouches for it and gets it certified, and I also don't see how the IRS could deny an application simply because the software is open source. (*) And the software itself wouldn't interact directly with the IRS. It'd send the information to a transmitter who would then check the information for basic accuracy and then send it off to the IRS.
I think one day we will have open source e-file capable software. Of course, e-filing might not be free, as the transmitter would likely charge a small fee. If I had the time and/or the money (same thing), I'd be interested in making such software. And if someone else makes the software, I'd be willing to put it through the IRS testing.
(*) Back in 2002 or so I actually filed a form 8633 to apply as a software developer and transmitter for my open source QingTax software. I was given the codes and telephone numbers and approved for official testing, but unfortunately I never finished the software. The project has since been deleted from sourceforge. Nowadays I have much less free time.
Honestly, that's the same guarantee you you get with a commercial tax program or from an accountant.
I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll repost it here. You're wrong. I personally guarantee that every tax return I complete has been prepared correctly according to the information you've given me, and I will pay for any penalties you incur due to any mistakes I make.
But if you miss out on big deductions you should have taken, or, even worse, if the program or accountant tells you to take some deductions that land you in hot water, it's all on you.
I can't guarantee that you've given me complete and correct information, of course, but I will work with you to try to ensure that you don't miss anything. This is somewhere I think an experienced tax preparer such as myself will perform a much better job than a computer program. Humans are more adaptable than computers.
Not if I have to drop that $40 to find out that I'm only getting $100 or so back.
Huh? Why should it matter how much you're getting back? There are other reasons to file besides the refund, like not going to jail for failure to file income taxes, for instance.
Ask your accountant for his guarantee. I don't think it is any different.
I guarantee that the returns I complete are correctly computed based on the information you've provided and will pay any penalties you owe due to any mistakes I've made. And pretty much any paid tax preparer will give that same guarantee. So no, it is different.
Not everyones tax is complicated enough to need an accountant.
True, though the difficulty of the tax is only one factor. Other factors are the knowledge of the taxpayer and the value of the taxpayer's time.
Some people don't need to hire an accountant to figure out their tax. I e-file my own taxes using the free software provided by TaxACT. Then again, I am an accountant.
Thanks. I think you're right, and what I really need is a better camera. I'll check out the Nikon D40, it looks like the price is reasonable for what's basically my second serious (but hobby) digital camera.
One question I have is how long will it be before these cameras are basically obsolete? I'd rather not have to buy a new camera every year.
If your subject is relatively static, automatic exposure bracketing will provide you with what you want, and all the semi-pro DSLRs out there can do this.
Hmm. Thanks for the response. I believe my camera does support this, and it's pretty close to what I was asking for: "Bracketing shots can also be helpful if you want to combine two images to get the best composite image." If my camera doesn't support this, at least I know what to look for next time.
Yeah, looking at the demo pictures I see this is basically replacing noise with blur.
I was thinking about this recently, and I think what we need is a digital camera which can somehow take multiple short exposure shots one after the other and then combine them into a single photo. The algorithm would have to be smart enough to detect movement of both the camera and the scenery in-between frames, so we're talking advanced software, but it does seem possible.
Otherwise, having to choose between underexposed, noisy, and blurry, when shooting telephoto in anything but the brightest of sunlight just doesn't seem right... I guess I could just carry a tripod with me everywhere:)
You're not familiar with federal law enforcement, interstate highways, or the military?
Not with their benefits to the average Google employee. OK, interstate highways are kind of cool.
As for your example, I'd like to point out something you said: Employees pay "taxes", while Google only pays "property tax". Are you suggesting that corporations have more rights than the individuals that comprise them?
I agree with the sibling AC, and also wish to point out that the FairTax is the only plan which completely removes all tax obligation from the poor.
Huh? For what definition of poor? The current income tax system completely removes all tax obligation from the poor. In fact, poor families with kids get a bigger refund than what they paid in, call it a negative tax.
For example, the Kerry family paid about a 13% marginal tax rate. Note that this is actually lower than the 14% that low income people pay. Is that really a progressive rate?
Not if you compare the Kerry family at 13% to a low-income family who paid 14%. But most low-income families pay less than 14%, due to refundable credits (mainly the EIC and the additional child tax credit). And the Kerry family most likely paid more than 13% if you count payroll taxes. Oh yeah, and finally, there's no way 13% was the marginal tax rate for the Kerry family.
The current income tax system is somewhat progressive, when you run all the numbers and take *average* figures. But the distribution is also all over the place due to the enormous discrepancies between different people who make the same income.
All this said, I agree with you that most talk about progressive tax rates inaccurately forgets about the highly regressive payroll taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Just selling source code and not granting any license at all would probably accomplish that in practice if not strictly by law. In-house modifications are arguably fair use, and even if not it's basically unenforceable law anyway.
Personally I'd want to go one step further. I'd like to allow (and encourage) distribution of modifications (for free or for a charge), to people who already purchased the original.
I was thinking recently that I'd like something similar to this, though I wouldn't call it a "libre" license. The idea is that anyone who purchased the software would get full source code and a license to make any changes without restriction, and they could distribute the software, with or without changes, to anyone who purchased a license. Furthermore, they could resell licenses. So if the base license cost $10, they could make changes and sell the modified software for $15, as long as they turned over $10 to me for each license they sold. Incidentally, it seems to me that such a license is sufficiently "free", and could actually be more useful than traditional free software, because it allows people who make modifications the ability to make money.
i was told by a mortgage broker that it is illegal for the mortgage company to make interest on the money they're holding in escrow.
Sure they "make interest on the money". In fact, you're the one paying it. If you didn't have to pay that money into escrow, it'd go toward your principal, and lower the interest you pay on the loan.
don't forget your transaction costs!!! How much does it cost YOU to process a cheque?
Well, I'm an accountant in the USA, and it takes about three times as much effort to process a debit card purchase as it does to process a check. Credit card purchases are a little easier, only takes about twice as much effort to process them.
And that's only if the client has kept good records. With checks, they usually do, and if not they get an image of the check on their bank statement. But with credit cards they usually don't record the transaction at the time they make it, so they have to go back later to do this. And with debit cards if they didn't record the transaction in their check register at the time they made it (which they invariably don't), then their account is out of balance too.
Now, the fact that you spelled it "cheque" and "labour" makes me think you're not living in the USA. From what I've heard Europe has much better electronic payment processing than the US.
In fact, a good way to tell the legitimacy of the seller, especially if they were a "private" seller, is to see if they would accept a USPO money order.
As a seller, I used to love the USPS money order, and gave a discount (I think it was around 5%) to anyone who paid with it. I'd cash in the money order while dropping the package off at the post office (which was right down the street from my house). Cleared instantly, no chargebacks, no bounced checks, no need to go to the bank *before* shipping. It was well worth giving away the discount, which was more than the what I'd have paid in paypal fees.
He's actually not at the helm of either, though he exerts a lot of influence over Wikipedia.
I always took "Alpha" to imply feature-complete.
Personally I think it's crap not because it doesn't work, but because there aren't any original good ideas to it. Mini articles are cool, but not at all original, and the idea that they're going to populate them solely from user contributions rather than taking them from a free content source or buying them from somewhere is dumb. Sure, rating results doesn't work, but again, not at all original, and probably not that useful unless and until there are millions of people using the thing. Then there's the whole Myspace/Facebook/whatever stuff. Not original, not well integrated into the rest of the site, not interesting to me, and not a good idea in the first place (to integrate the two).
Wales says "It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine." Fine, but how does Jimmy expect to get people to build a search engine for his for-profit business? There are answers to that question, but I don't see where Jimmy has hit on any of them. The Alpha that launched today doesn't seem geared to developers. Sure, when Wikipedia was launched it sucked. But at least I could edit it and make it not suck! And anything I added could be used by anywhere in the world, not just Jimmy Wales or Bomis. What can I do with Search Wikia? Add to the mini-articles? Lame.
Yeah, reminds me of the story about the guy who made a FOIA request asking for a copy of his FBI file, and received a copy of his FOIA request.
I never said it did.
Last time I looked (which was admittedly about 5 years ago), that wasn't true. There were transmitters out there who would transmit returns created by third party software.
It'd be nice, I guess, and the Internet would certainly facilitate the logistics of that. But it's not a particularly big stumbling block - transmission is cheap and easy, you could probably get it down to less than the cost of a stamp.
The hard part is building the software in the first place.
So? Free software refers to freedom, not to price. I'd rather pay a couple bucks a return (that's all it should cost) to e-file software using open source software than e-file for free using proprietary software.
Oh yeah, and just to be clear, I'm talking about tax preparers, those who actually sign your return. Taxes prepared using tax software is almost always considered "self-prepared", and correspondingly usually comes with no guarantee.
Frankly, I don't know any who don't, and I would think this is covered by an implied warranty barring an explicit disclaimer. But I'm not an expert on the UCC, so take that with a heaping tablespoon of salt.
The taxpayer is responsible for the arithmetic also, as the taxpayer signed the return. However, presumably the tax preparer would be responsible for reimbursing the taxpayer for such a penalty under an implied warranty (but see my note about the UCC above). It's also possible the taxpayers penalties could be abated due to "reasonable cause".
This is all besides the preparer penalties which the IRS can choose to assess directly upon the tax preparer.
I wonder if I should put a circular 230 disclaimer on all of this. Well, just in case: this post was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Huh? If you want to create e-file software, you use the API provided in Publication 1346, you file a form 8633, and pass the IRS Assurance Testing Process. There doesn't appear to be any IRS limitation barring open source software from this exact same process used by proprietary software developers.
I don't see a problem with open source software, as long as someone vouches for it and gets it certified, and I also don't see how the IRS could deny an application simply because the software is open source. (*) And the software itself wouldn't interact directly with the IRS. It'd send the information to a transmitter who would then check the information for basic accuracy and then send it off to the IRS.
I think one day we will have open source e-file capable software. Of course, e-filing might not be free, as the transmitter would likely charge a small fee. If I had the time and/or the money (same thing), I'd be interested in making such software. And if someone else makes the software, I'd be willing to put it through the IRS testing.
(*) Back in 2002 or so I actually filed a form 8633 to apply as a software developer and transmitter for my open source QingTax software. I was given the codes and telephone numbers and approved for official testing, but unfortunately I never finished the software. The project has since been deleted from sourceforge. Nowadays I have much less free time.
I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll repost it here. You're wrong. I personally guarantee that every tax return I complete has been prepared correctly according to the information you've given me, and I will pay for any penalties you incur due to any mistakes I make.
I can't guarantee that you've given me complete and correct information, of course, but I will work with you to try to ensure that you don't miss anything. This is somewhere I think an experienced tax preparer such as myself will perform a much better job than a computer program. Humans are more adaptable than computers.
Huh? Why should it matter how much you're getting back? There are other reasons to file besides the refund, like not going to jail for failure to file income taxes, for instance.
I guarantee that the returns I complete are correctly computed based on the information you've provided and will pay any penalties you owe due to any mistakes I've made. And pretty much any paid tax preparer will give that same guarantee. So no, it is different.
True, though the difficulty of the tax is only one factor. Other factors are the knowledge of the taxpayer and the value of the taxpayer's time.
Some people don't need to hire an accountant to figure out their tax. I e-file my own taxes using the free software provided by TaxACT. Then again, I am an accountant.
Thanks. I think you're right, and what I really need is a better camera. I'll check out the Nikon D40, it looks like the price is reasonable for what's basically my second serious (but hobby) digital camera.
One question I have is how long will it be before these cameras are basically obsolete? I'd rather not have to buy a new camera every year.
Hmm. Thanks for the response. I believe my camera does support this, and it's pretty close to what I was asking for: "Bracketing shots can also be helpful if you want to combine two images to get the best composite image." If my camera doesn't support this, at least I know what to look for next time.
Yeah, looking at the demo pictures I see this is basically replacing noise with blur.
I was thinking about this recently, and I think what we need is a digital camera which can somehow take multiple short exposure shots one after the other and then combine them into a single photo. The algorithm would have to be smart enough to detect movement of both the camera and the scenery in-between frames, so we're talking advanced software, but it does seem possible.
Otherwise, having to choose between underexposed, noisy, and blurry, when shooting telephoto in anything but the brightest of sunlight just doesn't seem right... I guess I could just carry a tripod with me everywhere :)
So does this mean I can start shooting my photos in ISO 400 and cleaning them up later?
Not with their benefits to the average Google employee. OK, interstate highways are kind of cool.
No, I'm not.
Huh? For what definition of poor? The current income tax system completely removes all tax obligation from the poor. In fact, poor families with kids get a bigger refund than what they paid in, call it a negative tax.
Not if you compare the Kerry family at 13% to a low-income family who paid 14%. But most low-income families pay less than 14%, due to refundable credits (mainly the EIC and the additional child tax credit). And the Kerry family most likely paid more than 13% if you count payroll taxes. Oh yeah, and finally, there's no way 13% was the marginal tax rate for the Kerry family.
The current income tax system is somewhat progressive, when you run all the numbers and take *average* figures. But the distribution is also all over the place due to the enormous discrepancies between different people who make the same income.
All this said, I agree with you that most talk about progressive tax rates inaccurately forgets about the highly regressive payroll taxes.