An Open Source Tax Credit
An Open Source Tax Credit
If you’re a corporation and you develop software, you deduct your costs from your taxes. And, in many cases, you can take an R&D Tax Credit. But if you’re an individual and you develop open source software — i.e., Firefox or WordPress — you eat those costs.
Individuals developing open source software should have the same tax incentives as corporations, which is why we’ve developed a proposal for an Open Source Tax Credit.
The code is pretty simple: if you develop open source software on your own time, you should be able to deduct part of your out-of-pocket costs as a credit on your income taxes.
The cost to the government would be minimal, but we would take an important step in recognizing the contribution open source developers are making to our communities and our economy. You can read the full economic analysis of this proposal here. Let us know what you think.
– Carl Malamud and John Irons
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bill Gates is watching you.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:47 am“The cost to the government would be minimal, but we would take an important step in recognizing the contribution open source developers are making to our communities and our economy. You can read the full economic analysis of this proposal here. Let us know what you think.”
Open source developers are doing just fine without Big Brother poking his nose into it. It’s amazing to me how Liberals think that there is NOTHING worth doing that shouldn’t be invested with governmental oversight.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:50 amIt’s amazing to me how Liberals think that there is NOTHING worth doing that shouldn’t be invested with governmental oversight.
Like overseas phone calls?
March 17th, 2006 at 11:01 am#2 You don’t know anything about liberals, progressives, etc. You just think you do and sound stupid doing so. You show your ignorance daily and daily you are proven to be spreading lies and misinformation.
Your fanciful ideas are crushing to small businesses that make us unique. You speak of Big Brother, yet you are on that side. Nobody buys your propaganda. I wish you would donate some of your angry rant time that you waste here to your fellow Americans so they won’t need your tax dollars. Why not spend a lunch hour feeding the poor? I do it all the time and it feels good. You can learn a lot from the folks you say steal your money and live off the gov. dime. When you learn that all people are useful, even after they aren’t embryos any longer.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:01 amOpen source developers are doing just fine without Big Brother poking his nose into it. It’s amazing to me how Liberals think that there is NOTHING worth doing that shouldn’t be invested with governmental oversight.
You missed the point here, IRI.
The point is that companies get tax credit/breaks for developing software. But open source developers don’t.
The goal of this proposal is to allow open source devs the ability to get a credit for the work they do, just like the big companies that keep their source code secret.
Really, you should read something before you slander it with your searing hatred for progressives.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:02 amThe whole point of open source is to DONATE… not make money. Remember MICROSOFT is the one that broke the strangle hold on computing power by the likes of IBM…NOT open source. I have donated code, but I dont expect it to have anything to do with profits nor tax deductions.
When the companies that embrace open source stop using the courts to do what their software developments efforts could not do to compete with Microsoft then maybe they will be able to make something people are willing to pay for. THEN they get their tax credits.
This whole idea that Microsoft is rightwing is BUNK. Microsoft put the power of computing into MOST peoples hands…not Apple…not the new comer open source. If you do not want to make something for free then sell it….there will be your tax credits.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:02 amI don’t understand why corporations should be getting tax breaks for doing normal business functions. I “develop” things every day at my office. Granted its not software but it helps my place of business earn money. What is the difference?
March 17th, 2006 at 11:03 am#3 I know; I just thought that was TOO obvious. Isn’t it ironic? Isn’t it absolutely ridiculous? It’s hard to believe that a person can be so contradictory and still not be clever enough to see what he is posting. Flip flop isn’t even the word. It is a total disconnect. There is no logic or clear thought pattern, just random bull pulled right from the clear blue sky.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:04 am7)
When it comes to software development the tax credits are like an investment or endorsement by the government into modernizing the world by making it worth the risk to develop highly complex software.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:05 amThis is a fantastic idea. I’m an open-source developer on many projects dealing in PHP, java and C, and the time spent is a premium.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:14 amThree cheers.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:16 am#9
March 17th, 2006 at 11:23 amThanks, that’s kind of what I was expecting. To me this is an unfair advantage to give one group of developers breaks and another not. I am always sickened by the mentality that corporations are treated better than citizens(humans). EIther one way or the other. Strip the tax breaks or give them to all developers. If htey both contribute to the development of complex software let all reap the benefit of tax breaks or slog out the financials in their own way.
IRI yew moron. That had to be about the Stupidest tangent you have “created” Yet.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am——————————-
I would think this would fit into the republican way of thinking. A tax break to engourage potential economic developemnt. Kind of a no brainer in my opinion.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am13)
Sorry I still do not see the point. When I make software and give it away I feel good inside that I am helping other developers. That is my reward. I do not expect to be treated the same as someone that takes a risk to start a company and try selling my software. After many years of software development I am just now. Starting my own company to sell my own products. This is FAR harder than making some open source and just throwing it up on SourceForge.net. When you are going to RISK your time on a business you spend at least twice the amount of time you spent on coding to create marketing material, websites, distribution systems, tech support systems, costs of starting a business, costs of running the business (accounting etc.), and the hassle of hiring employees. Open source in comparison is requires just the time and risk that a hobbyist puts into what they enjoy doing.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:35 amThis whole idea that Microsoft is rightwing is BUNK. Microsoft put the power of computing into MOST peoples hands…not Apple…not the new comer open source. If you do not want to make something for free then sell it….there will be your tax credits.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 17, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Bill Gates bought DOS from another programmer, actually he SOLD the DOS to IBM BEFORE he bought that Software.
Not to Mention his Mother sat on the Board of IBM.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:35 amGates Father was a Banker as Well. That’s not Right Wing?
My My. It sure doesn’t look “librul”
Gerald its like writing off Work Boots, or Tools that one buys for his Work except its for software
March 17th, 2006 at 11:36 am17)
Except open source is not for making money it is for giving away…. Do you deserve tax credits for giving away your old clothes to GoodWill?
March 17th, 2006 at 11:43 amBill Gates bought DOS from another programmer, actually he SOLD the DOS to IBM BEFORE he bought that Software.
Not to Mention his Mother sat on the Board of IBM.
Gates Father was a Banker as Well. That’s not Right Wing?
My My. It sure doesn’t look “librulâ€
Comment by Duhbya Doolittle
It does not change the fact that Microsoft used the opportunity they were able to get from IBM to strip IBMs power over the entire industry. If the Oracles, Suns, and IBMs of the world had their way THEY would be the only ones with computers and the rest of us would have dumb terminals….I would NEVER have been able to learn software development on my own at home with a dumb terminal. Even after the Internet started those same companies were pushing java/dumb terminals connected to mainframes… That goes against EVERYTHING the PC revolution has been about. Before Microsoft the IBMs of the world made it so you had to be a special “priest” to get your hands on the computer. Once the PC revolution started IBM tried controlling it by making the IBM PC with a BIOS that they thought only they could control. When the clone PC makers reverse engineered the BIOS what did Microsoft do? Did Microsoft help protect IBM by only producing MSDOS for IBMs??? Nope. They supported the clone industry and that blew the whole thing wide open which lead to kids like me getting their hands on PCs far cheaper and teaching themselves how to code.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:48 amThis is a great proposal.
Until the government closes the tax loopholes that give away $290+ BILLION dollars a year to corporations, I think giving the small guy a break too is a wonderful idea.
BTW, Tux rocks!!!
March 17th, 2006 at 11:53 amGerald Gibson: “Microsoft put the power of computing into MOST peoples hands…not Apple…not the new comer open source. If you do not want to make something for free then sell it….there will be your tax credits.”
BULL-fucking-SHIT! The “power of computing” they “put” (no, sold at a significant price) into most peoples’ hands was largely copied and, in some cases, blatantly stolen. And I know of my own personal knowledge, in detail, and relating to numerous technologies. You know why Microsoft never gets anything to work successfully until version 3.0? It’s because versions 1.0 and (2.0 partly) are their own ideas; by 3.0, they’ve just found someone’s that does work to rip off.
And, BTW, in servers and DBMS, Open Source is eating their lunch. Of 8 servers in our formerly all-Microsoft shop, only one is still Windows/IIS/MS-SQL, and the rest are now either Linux or FreeBSD, running PHP & MySQL with vastly better performance, less downtime, and with much better security.
Relating to security, Open Source can get people who care about fixing security flaws, while Microsoft has to wait for top management to determine that it’s important enough to put in MSFT employees’ performance ojectives. If you are a MSFT employee, it is entirely against your interest to do ANYHING that is not spelled out in your performance objectives; your measurement against meeting those, and nothing else, determines whether you’re ranked an A (promoted + nice raise), B (maybe promoted, maybe not, some raise), C (needs to improve if you want to get promoted or any significant raise), or below (goodbye). Frankly, security is only important to Microsoft relating to PR, which is why holes they know about go unfixed for weeks – months – or longer, until they hit the press.
Microsoft is only “innovative” at coming up with new ways to describe their hegemony as being good for you. You may drink the KoolAid, but if they’re not paying you to do it, you’re a fool.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:55 amI would also like to add that computer programs in general should be shifted onto a seven year patent, as that is how long it takes your average program to no longer work without an emulator on the most popular current operating system, and the law as it stands (holding it under copyright, which expires about hundred years after the creators death) is only stifling the industry.
I would include games in this.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:11 pmIt sounds to shady to be possible, whos to say I havent spent 30+ hours a week on open source? Also what costs, besides time are spent on open source. Odds are if you do open source your a programmer for a job and already own the complilers you program in. That said, its a sweet idea, but dosn’t sound fesible.
On the security point from #21, from my own experience, I’m convinced microsoft products are nearly as secure as the rest of the industry, but it’s not worth while, due to market share, to exploit any of the other systems. Think about pop-ups on firefox, everyone claimed it couldn’t be done, then once there market share made it worth while they started to happen.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pmSince the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have the same rights as a person in the courts, people should have the same rights as corporations.
Sounds like a very egalitarian proposal to me, but that’s the problem. Nobody stands to make a butt-load of money on this, therefore it won’t fly.
Find a way to make several billion for some corporatoin and this will sail through.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pmDucktape…You have no idea what you are talking about. You have been listening to too many 13 years that jumped on the new “cool” thing and thought they were fighting “the man” when infact we who work with Microsoft software are the ones that striped “the man” from his power over computing…
BULL-fucking-SHIT! The “power of computing†they “put†(no, sold at a significant price) into most peoples’ hands was largely copied and, in some cases, blatantly stolen. And I know of my own personal knowledge, in detail, and relating to numerous technologies. You know why Microsoft never gets anything to work successfully until version 3.0? It’s because versions 1.0 and (2.0 partly) are their own ideas; by 3.0, they’ve just found someone’s that does work to rip off.
This shows you know NOTHING about the software development CYCLE. Why does Microsofts software really get good at vs 3.0? I can tell you why and if you read any software development HowTos from Microsoft you will see why also. Cyclic development. You do NOT go for the ultimate piece of software from step1. That is inviting disaster because NO human being is a god and so NO human being can see all the problems and twists and turns you will encounter while trying to develop the software. So cyclic development means you start off with a version 1.0 that only does SOME of the things you want it to, but it does it without crashing all over the place. Cycle version 2.0 adds more features without breaking the previous ones (or as much as possible anyway). By time you get to cycle version 3.0 you can now make the software you envisioned before you got started on version 1.0.
You have NO proof that Microsoft STOLE anything. I have seen for years this assertion with NO proof to back it up. And assertions by other people is not proof.
As far as what you have seen happen at your shop does not reflect the world as a whole. The MYTH about Microsoft server stability is just that. If you are a professional you setup your servers like Microsofts documentation says to and you have a perfectly professional system that can acheive up to 99.999% uptime. I have done this myself currently with a clustering system built entirely on Microsoft software and the software that my team wrote. Every company I have worked for or with and the military that I have worked with has successfully been using Microsoft based software and had no reason to look else where. The great “cost” you mention about Microsoft software is laughable. I was poor for the first few years of my adult life but I scrounged up the $300 for VC++ 1.0 and a Packard Bell PC from Sears and made myself a career with no college. Windows costs $100 – $300 depending on what you are after. BIG DEAL. If you are wanting high end server software then you can get it for almost for free to develop your software on and then it does cost about $5000 per server for going into business… once again so what? That is what businesses do they spend money to make money. And the cost from Microsoft is FAR cheaper than their competitors. When you get your “free” linux you are getting what you paid for. FAR more software comes with Windows than Linux. I have to write FAR less software on Windows because so much of it comes built in.
You have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to security. Microsoft was making software BEFORE the Internet. Microsofts software was made for closed loop small to medium sized companies…not the open public network that the Internet is. Do you have any clue the amount of time it takes to rewrite 12 years worth of software to work in a public network after it was all written to be used in a closed office environement? What did you expect Microsoft to do? Act like an immature kiddie and throw it all in the trash and start over? What would everyone do in the mean time? No. They did the responsible thing and has MAINTAINED backwards compatiblity while taking the time in the background building .Net to replace all their older COM based software. .Net is built from the ground up to work in an open public network like the Internet. You are trying to live in a utopia world instead of the REAL world where people have REAL needs and REAL software that cannot just be dumped because of the Internet.
Microsoft innovation has changed the entire world. The amount of software they have made and the WIDE scope of areas it covers is breath taking… if you are done with your tirade go to …
http://research.microsoft.com/
We developers that have thrown our lot in with Microsoft in the late 80s have been doing for years the things that the Internet developers have just now started dreaming about. We have been using the older COM technologies to do things on the Internet that makes the web browser seem silly. Client/Server, Clustering, Plug and Play object interfacing, high availablity queueing, MASSIVE integration of all systems to all other systems via COM Interfacing, B2B… Server to Server communication was going on LONG before the Internet… it was called DCOM…(CORBA did this also) Something the rest of the world is just now waking up to in the form of web services.
The PC revolution started long before the Internet and Microsoft was leading the way from the beginning.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmSince the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have the same rights as a person in the courts, people should have the same rights as corporations.
Sounds like a very egalitarian proposal to me, but that’s the problem. Nobody stands to make a butt-load of money on this, therefore it won’t fly.
Find a way to make several billion for some corporatoin and this will sail through.
Comment by Hardy Haberman
People do have the same rights… Its called becoming an entrepenuer.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm#25 Before some one else gets to it, you disagreed, but used poor grammer, therefor all of your points are invalid.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmAlso, my boss at my last job was sueing Microsoft for patent infrigment on some stuff with calendars, we worked at a patent firm that his brother owned, so odds are they know they have a solid case.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:31 pmsquegeeboo
Please dont back me up… with friends like you who needs enemies.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:33 pmAlso, my boss at my last job was sueing Microsoft for patent infrigment on some stuff with calendars, we worked at a patent firm that his brother owned, so odds are they know they have a solid case.
Comment by squegeeboo
I have a couple patents filed also… but it is a crap shoot. Since the patent office seems to have no way to be knowledgeable about all the areas of technology you have no clue if your patent will be upheld or not. Try getting on the patent office site and reading some of the patents. Even if you are in the software industry it is almost impossible to tell what the hell these people are talking about because they make the patents so broad just to try to snag anyone that does anything that may SOUND like the same thing to a judge or jury that has no clue.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pmI sorta go both ways on this one Gibson, the security I agree with you on. The theft, I think their guilty on.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm#30 My point was we were the development company that was owned by a patent lawyer, who runs one of the largest patent firms in NY state. And our boss, who was sueing microsoft was the brother of the lawyer, so they prob. have a pretty frim grasp on if there was infrigment or not.
But, from dealing with the USPTO on the software we were writing, I’m well aware about how F’ed that whole beuracracy is.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pmHistorical perspective folks.
IBM wasn’t the first personal computer. Prior to them there was Commodore, Osborne, Apple, TI, Atari.
IBM was the first BIG company that put it’s product in corporate offices at each desk. Apple (a way better product, thus more expensive) put theirs in schools.
IBM wrote their own DOS (disc operating system) first. They very soon there-after hired Microsoft to write later editions. IBM goofed in that when they hired Microsoft, they didn’t specify IBM’s ownership on all Microsoft’s work. Hence, Microsoft became the standard. For years, IBM also produced their own DOS, that worked similarly with Microsoft. I doubt they still do.
While I may admire Microsoft, the Goliath, a Ibhor them for what they became. they crush the life out of anyone they think may threaten them. Their operating system is always fraught with security risks that they know about, but won’t tell you until they are FORCED to issue a new security alert. Ever notice their security alerts are more than one a month?
I USE their stuff all day at work. I LIKE most of their software, Office, Access. If I had servers, I wouldn’t use their OS on a server. I don’t use IE, I use firefox (way LESS pop-ups – sorry to burst your bubble who ever said otherwise above), specifically because of the virus threats it’s open to.
My lament, I’m not currently using a G-5. I am using a PC. However, with Craigslist’s help, I’ll be rectifying that this year.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:49 pmWhile I may admire Microsoft, the Goliath, a Ibhor them for what they became. they crush the life out of anyone they think may threaten them. Their operating system is always fraught with security risks that they know about, but won’t tell you until they are FORCED to issue a new security alert. Ever notice their security alerts are more than one a month?
I laughed out loud at this. Not because of the content, but because while reading it, I was reminded of the Bush administration.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:59 pmGerald, Open Source Software most definitely is for making money, not for charity. Maybe you should ask IBM, Novell or Sun, for example, if they think the open source software they develop or help develop is just charity…
March 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pmKindness do a search on the Internet of all the little guys that have been able to build themselves a business based on Microsofts platforms. Microsoft crushed people that thought they could take Microsoft head on… that is called losing in a competition. Those that are making software that compliments Microsoft have made a very good living. Some of them have even grown into huge companies themselves. If they had to rely on IBM that would never have happened for them. It is because of Microsoft that many millions of people have built themselves careers/small businesses.
Back when there were only BBS systems Netscape was bad ass. Once Microsoft made IE Netscape looked pathetic to developers. IE worked just like the business developers were used to working. Netscape then seemed like a hack. To us in the Microsoft world the browser was just one more API to add to our belts… Netscape thought it was somehow going to replace an entire OS and they paid the price. They should have realized they were far far away from replacing Microsoft and WORKED with them like Microsoft offered. Since they refused Microsoft had no choice but to continue to deliver what we developers were demanding… Internet technologies that were based on the same Microsoft methodologies that we had all spent years learning… and they did…and they gave to us for free like most of their APIs so that we could sell our software based on IE at a reasonable price so we could make a profit… that isnt what a monopoly does….help smaller companies make money…but that is exactly what Microsoft did. There are thousands of people that benefited for each “Netscape” that lost their ass.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pmGerald, Open Source Software most definitely is for making money, not for charity. Maybe you should ask IBM, Novell or Sun, for example, if they think the open source software they develop or help develop is just charity…
Comment by Adam Piontek
IBM,Sun,Novell ==dumb terminal closed systems…. They bought into open source ONLY to try to save themselves from Microsoft and its army of developers like myself that were eating their lunch.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pmYea Gerald, tell that to Netscape.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:06 pm38) Read what I said about Netscape. They had their chance and they blew it. People like me that were Microsoft developers but only had BBSes for public networking LOVED Netscape when it first came out and the Internet was first starting… but they didnt offer the level of technical capabilities that we were used to in the office environment. They stuck with their “dumb terminal” mentality so we didnt support them once Microsoft gave us IE…. that is all there is to it. If Netscape gave us what we wanted we would have built our software to work with them and Microsoft would have had no reason to make IE… but they didnt.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pmUUUmmm, I’d rather see our tax code completely redone; that’s the fight worth fighting for.
The tax code has basically become a tool for our politicians to play games, to give perks to their base, rather than a means to pay for government services. Just think of all the time, money and national resources that are used to create, document, process, reprocess, etc., that could be used for real productivity.
Perhaps Steve Forbes was right about the flat tax.
We’d all save time and money because we wouldn’t have to pay for services or buy software to do our taxes because they are so complex, with all the forms, schedules, tables, calculations, worksheets, etc., etc. Our taxes are so complex we created an entire industry that is now going to fight to keep things the same or worse… now that should be saying something.
Keep the government out of open source.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pmThey lost because Microsoft was able to afford to GIVE AWAY IE.
somehow you seem to be all too willing to overlook that whole Goliath thing and act like it’s always a good thing. You speak well, and you advocate well, but I’m not going to agree with you.
I DON’T think Bill Gates is Satan or anything. I just see them as a huge corporate entity that doesn’t have anyone but their own best interests at stake.
How many years did Microsoft pay $0 Federal Tax dollars because of the way they gave their employees stock options? Most of the 90’s. Why is a corporation that makes BILLIONS every year paying $0 when I’m paying 35%. That’s my beef too, and that covers the way our government gives corporations MORE freedom & rights than a citizen.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmDo you deserve tax credits for giving away your old clothes to GoodWill?
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 17, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Donations to charitable organistations, such as Goodwill, are tax-deductible…
March 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmDo you deserve tax credits for giving away your old clothes to GoodWill?
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 17, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Donations to charitable organistations, such as Goodwill, are tax-deductible…
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 17, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
I was wondering when someone would point that out.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pm40)
I agree. The tax industry is self perpetuating. We need a fair flat tax that taxes the people that spend more money more taxes… those that can not afford to spend money because they dont have any pay little or no taxes. Like a flat sales taxes that only taxes unneccessary spending. i.e if you are only buying baby diapers and food etc.. then no tax. If you buy a Lexus you pay serious tax.
I also agree with keeping government out of opensource. Eventually most software that most people need will be written and donated for free. Once that happens the costs associated with software will dramitically decrease. But if you start injecting money matters into open source the “free” part about it will disappear… this is exactly what I expect from IBM,Sun,Novell …once they get enough people hooked they will only deliver dumb terminals instead of PCs and then people only pay for “services” and to keep “services” costs down they will make everyone take locked down dumb terminals that can not be used to burn CDs or develop your own “competing” software or much of anything that they dont want you to do.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmThey lost because Microsoft was able to afford to GIVE AWAY IE.
They always gave their APIs away for free… You see right there is how the antiMicrosoft crowd has tricked you. You dont understand that the browser has two sides… one is the part that you see the other is the part you dont see but developers do. A browser to developers is just a tool we use to make software. We can embed IE into our Windows software and use it for all kinds of things besides “browsing”… IE is is an application host and a component library… not just an end user application.
As far as the 0$ taxes …well I am not too versed on all of that. I do give them the benefit of the doubt though because they made their employees rich instead of treating as disposable like say …miners are in WV…
March 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pmthey also gave away their APIs for free which allowed alot more nonemployees make a good living at no cost. There may be more to it than that though… did they have some kind of dirty scheme going? I dont know the details about their taxing so maybe.
Donations to charitable organistations, such as Goodwill, are tax-deductible…
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Damnit! All these years of giving stuff away for nothin … >-(
March 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#25 – You have NO proof that Microsoft STOLE anything. I have seen for years this assertion with NO proof to back it up. And assertions by other people is not proof.
Sorry. But do you know where uSoft got their TCP/IP stack? Yep. That’s right. From the open source community. Dude. They got it through the BSD license, which allows them to use it without “giving back”.
That’s just the start. If you think uSoft is “good” then you don’t know squat about security. They are the sole source of virus distribution. They are the sole source of script kiddie madness. They are the sole source of unprotected open ports.
Further, do you understand why uSoft is so unstable? Do you understand why calls directly into the kernal, just so you can gain speed and “performance” are not a good idea? No, probably not.
In 1998, uSoft claimed by the year 2000 that they would “own” 90% of all new server sales. That year, Linux actually sold and shipped on around $18% of the servers. In 1999, IDC reported that Linux was up around 35% to 35%. These number did NOT include systems converted from uSoft to Linux. By the year 2000, 35% of all installed uSoft servers had been converted to Linux. By the time uSoft figured out they had a problem in their server markets, it was too late. They were chown’d by Linux.
Great company uSoft is, eh?
No go back and play your PlayStation or mind games (choose one or both). You don’t know squat.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmJesus Christ God of WAR despite your nasty attitude I will calmly explain…
That’s just the start. If you think uSoft is “good†then you don’t know squat about security. They are the sole source of virus distribution. They are the sole source of script kiddie madness. They are the sole source of unprotected open ports.
I just explained above the Microsoft software was developed before the Internet and so was not made to be run on an open public network… all those “security problems” were no problem at all in a closed office environment… unless you let a hacker in your building there was no problem. So that argument is bunk.
Sorry. But do you know where uSoft got their TCP/IP stack? Yep. That’s right. From the open source community. Dude. They got it through the BSD license, which allows them to use it without “giving backâ€.
That is not called stealing.. that is called accepting what is being given freely. If they wanted to charge Microsoft for the TCP/IP stack all they had to do was charge for it and Microsoft would either build their own or license somebody elses… but it was freely available so why bother?
All of your figures on server sales only explain the world of UNIX converting over to a free version of the same thing they were already using. Windows has this year finally passed the UNIX world in server sales… look it up.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pmI am undecided on this issue… I am probably more inclined to rescind the tax credits from the corporations than to give them to Open Source developers.
Time spent on developing Open Source applications is not charity, as other people have pointed out. The Open Source movement does not aim to give away the software, but to make it more affordable, more secure, and speed up its adoption by the user community. It is a compassionate approach to capitalism, as it were, based on the philosophical principle that not all capitalist initiatives have to be profitable beyond your wildest dreams. Follow the link to the Open Source Initiative web site, and read the FAQs.
Also, I am more inclined to support a serious effort to rewrite the tax code and its mind-boggling complexity. It seems to have as many exceptions as it has rules; it is my strong suspicion many (if not all) of these exceptions and caveats were introduced after heavy lobbying by some interest group, and hence the tax code is not designed to benefit the people -as it should in a democracy.
My two cents.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:45 pmMy two cents.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 17, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
But worth a million ;).
March 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#23 Sure, corporations would never lie.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pmI read this blog a lot and agree with almost everything, but this is the stupidest idea I’ve ever read on here. It would be nearly impossible to track, and more than half the open source projects out there never get past the basic development stages. This just doesn’t make any sense and posting something this stupid ruins the entire quality of this blog.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pmGerald Gibson, I know exactly what I am talking about, and further, I have quite a lot of documentary proof. As do quite a lot of other people in the industry. Not to mention the lawsuits that MSFT has lost, and the numerous settlements that you probably don’t know about. Go talk to ANY industry-experienced IP lawyer, and you can find out the proactive steps that Microsoft has taken to make it extremely expensive to mount any legal challenge to anything they do. By the way, I provided some of that evidence for the MSFT-DOJ trial, and if you remember, that decision went against Microsoft. BTW, don’t even go there — I covered the trial as well, and know it far better than you.
And you’re pretending to be someone experienced who “threw your lot in with them in the 80’s”…. ROFLMAO! Well, that sure tells me that you are a nobody who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. For one thing, if that were true, you wouldn’t be in the industry any more unless you were a very senior Microsoft employee, then and now. I suppose you could be that, trolling under another name, but I doubt it — there are few enough left since the 80’s because they’ve cashed out and left.
In terms of any developers who “threw their lot in” with MSFT in the 80’s, they’re not there any more, and partly because Microsoft eats its young. And if you had been there since the beginning, as you pretend and posture, I would know you, or at least know who you are.
You see, back then, as we actually began to become an industry instead of hobbyists who met in clubs and sent our programs into Byte when it was typed on an IBM Composer, we ALL knew each other. There was a joke in the industry — there were only 30 people in it, they just kept changing jobs. And I don’t just mean we knew who the other people were. Of course, the real microcomputer beginning was in the 70s, not the 80s. But from the 80’s or even as late as 1992, you tell ME what software company that “threw its lot in with Microsoft” survives and is thriving today. Maybe McAfee and Norton (as part of Symantec) count, but only because of MSFT’s piss-poor security.
So all I can conclude is that you’re either a shareware author who hasn’t created something that’s important enough for them to rip off, or more likely, you’re a blowfish — all hollow puff, and nothing inside.
You spout about how, if it weren’t for Microsoft, we would all have been at the mercy of Sun and Oracle (Oracle????? they make enterprise-size database management software, boy, not operating systems). Uh, no; we would have run CP/M-86 in our IBM PCs and other 16-bit machines, and it also already had other hardware licensees. What made the compatible market happen was Don Estridge’s decision to use off-the-shelf hardware components, then Phoenix’s 100%-compatible non-infringing BIOS made the “90% compatible” market into 100%-compatible clones, and IBM then stupidly took a left turn into the non-compatible microChannel bus, which took them out as a player. And perhaps you’re not old enough to remember that there was a compatible CP/M 8-bit market running on the Z-80 and 8088; the only things that hadn’t been standardized around CP/M at that point were the screen handling and the disk drive formats.
By the way, know your audience before you presume to lecture someone on the software development cycle, little boy. You are using technology right now for which I was the manager of the development team, and you’re using other technology where I was part of the (very small) team that wrote the world-wide standard. So go beat your chest elsewhere.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:10 pmDucktape …
I never said I worked for Microsoft. I said repeatedly that nonMicrosoft employees like myself …
You seem to think all programmers either work for Microsoft or hate Microsoft. There are far far more programmers that do not work for Microsoft, but specialize in Microsoft platforms than actually work for Microsoft… I wish I HAD worked for Microsoft in the late 80s… I would be rich right now … but at the time I was in highschool just starting to teach myself how to code.
I have worked as a freelancer since about 1993. I just recently started putting stuff out into the public and am starting to work for my own company … here is an article I recently published…
http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/InprocessAsynServicesInCS.asp
I know the ins and outs of what Microsofts platforms are and how they benefited people like me that were too poor to go to college and that loved PCs. You can get mad and stomp around, but the truth is the truth. Microsoft made it so I could get my hands on the top of the line software for almost nothing so that I could educate myself without being one of the choosen few in the IBM world or by paying for college. My education cost me maybe $2000 total and I have made probably around 500k to 750k since 1993. THAT is what Microsoft has done for the little guy. All your preaching can never make up for that.
Do you have any clue how many companies and free lancers out there makes software directly for business? MOST software written was not PRODUCTS. Most was custom made for each company one by one. I too moved from company to company. NOT making products but making custom applications for that company or government agency. Go to WALMART… How much (made for Microsoft Windows) software sit on the shelves? MOST of them do NOT come from Microsoft. Your argument is hollow.
None of your self back pating makes up for the REALITY. There are MILLIONS of developers that use MICROSOFT tools to make MICROSOFT compatible software…why is that Ducktape? Because Microsoft gave the developers everything they wanted practically for free. Did you ever do look at Apples website around 1994 to see what they offered their development community? It was a JOKE. I was young with a new daughter on the way and poor. I had to make a decision how I was going to make everything ok for my family considering I could not afford college. And so I looked at Microsoft and Apple. The UNIX world was closed off to people like me. I couldnt hardly even find books at the library about it… Microsoft made the choice obvious…if I was a little guy and wanted the same power of older people like you that were on the “inside” I had to go with Microsoft. And they delivered. I now make the kind of money my father only dreamed of and I owe it to BILL GATES… Not anyone from the Unix or CP/M world. Microsoft pushed their stuff OUT THERE and made it EASY for me to join in….that is why they spread like wild fire among the developers and blew CP/M …OS2 and all the others away… it didnt matter if CP/M was better in this way or that way …because it was better to work with a company that supported you but had less capable software than just going with companies that threw out the kind of trash documentation that IBM and the others put out.
Am I the GOD of all things PC like you? Nope. But I am not poor still working at a Village Pantry gas station …which is exactly what I would have been if I didnt go with Microsoft.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:29 pmYou spout about how, if it weren’t for Microsoft, we would all have been at the mercy of Sun and Oracle (Oracle????? they make enterprise-size database management software, boy, not operating systems).
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-10-1997/jw-10-infoworld.oracle.html
March 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmGerald, I have comments about sevceral of your posts -not to get in a flame war, but to try to point out a few misconceptions you seem to have about OpenSource.
Like this one:
When the companies that embrace open source stop using the courts to do what their software developments efforts could not do to compete with Microsoft then maybe they will be able to make something people are willing to pay for.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 17, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Are you saying Linux does not compete with Windows? That statement is obviously wrong. Red Hat, SugarCRM, OpenOffice can and do compete with MS products. Not to mention MySQL that competes with Oracle, and MS-SQL. I am using Firefox to post my comments in this blog. Need I lists more Open Source applications?
All these products and vendors have been successful without resorting to the courts, or any kind of legal action against Microsoft.
After many years of software development I am just now. Starting my own company to sell my own products. This is FAR harder than making some open source and just throwing it up on SourceForge.net. (…) Open source in comparison is requires just the time and risk that a hobbyist puts into what they enjoy doing.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 17, 2006 @ 11:35 am
I trust all software developers who start their own companies love what they do regardless whether or not their solution is Open Source. After all, starting your own business is about doing what you love, isn’t it? And starting a business is not easy, whether open source or otherwise.
As for SourceForge: You of all people should understand the need for resources like SourceForge provides. It is a forum for small entrepreneurs (such as yourself) to allow them to showcase their wares, and find fellow developers who are willing to help with the coding, debugging, etc.
Microsoft made it so I could get my hands on the top of the line software for almost nothing so that I could educate myself without being one of the choosen few in the IBM world or by paying for college. My education cost me maybe $2000 total and I have made probably around 500k to 750k since 1993. THAT is what Microsoft has done for the little guy.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 17, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Funny how the same exact thing can be said about the OpenSource movement. Developing on Microsoft’s platform is expensive when compared to any open source tool.
Overall, I find it puzzling you should choose to disparage the open source movement implying it’s not hard enough, or expensive enough to do business with that model. If anything, you should be embracing it since it is doing for others what Microsoft did for you. It also has potential to do a lot for you: No need to pay licences for any compiler, OS, source control tool, etc.
I don’t know what product you are working on or are already selling. IMHO, you should really explore the possibility of coming up with an open source version.
As I said, open source is not about giving your product away. It is also about making money; you just need to be more creative about it, and it probably won’t have the same margins -but then, who said money can buy me love? ;-)
March 17th, 2006 at 4:14 pmGerald,
One more thing. Oracle has since abandoned their Network Computer initiative to focus on what they do best: Databases and enterprise software.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pmI’m all for it, but I’m curious as to why this has been announced now, when the original proposal seems to be more than a year old?
March 17th, 2006 at 4:45 pmAre you saying Linux does not compete with Windows? That statement is obviously wrong. Red Hat, SugarCRM, OpenOffice can and do compete with MS products. Not to mention MySQL that competes with Oracle, and MS-SQL. I am using Firefox to post my comments in this blog. Need I lists more Open Source applications?
Linux is not considered seriously by most people. I recently have help some nongeeks get computers…they never once mentioned Linux and I doubt they ever heard of it. Since Linux can not compete (and win) their followers use lawsuits. I have personally tested MySQL vs MSSQL 2 times. Both times MSSQL Server completed its test run in less than 1 second. MySQL took 17 seconds the first run and the second run it hung and would only restart again after rebooting the server. I had similar results the other time I tried using MySQL for a serious business app. Firefox is an end user application… NOT an API that you can embed into your own applications so it doesnt even come close to competing with IE as far as a developers tool….it displays HTML ok but that is only one of many many things IE does.
All these products and vendors have been successful without resorting to the courts, or any kind of legal action against Microsoft.
Successful yes. Replace Microsoft..No.
I trust all software developers who start their own companies love what they do regardless whether or not their solution is Open Source. After all, starting your own business is about doing what you love, isn’t it? And starting a business is not easy, whether open source or otherwise.
As for SourceForge: You of all people should understand the need for resources like SourceForge provides. It is a forum for small entrepreneurs (such as yourself) to allow them to showcase their wares, and find fellow developers who are willing to help with the coding, debugging, etc.
I didnt say Open Source is Communisms way to destroy America or anything like that. I see open source as following the “Jesus” ethic …which is why I have contributed free software and have used Crypto++ (freely available) in my companies first product… I am not an enemy of open source…but the open source community seems to think they must be enemies of Microsoft and all who believe in Microsoft because they equate Microsoft with big bad capitalism even though it made its employees rich and helped many people like myself and as far as I know runs no overseas sweatshops.
Funny how the same exact thing can be said about the OpenSource movement. Developing on Microsoft’s platform is expensive when compared to any open source tool.
Yes but Microsoft start YEARS earlier and so has a huge lead on them and is more organized…as far as expensive…NO WAY…go to any college and see how much Microsoft charges the students…or better yet look here …it free and from Microsoft…
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualCSharp/learning/
And there is many more ways to get there stuff for basically nothing… they only get pissy about it when you start a company and rip them off while you are making money… which is fair.
Overall, I find it puzzling you should choose to disparage the open source movement implying it’s not hard enough, or expensive enough to do business with that model.
I think the open source community is great! Except their totally misguided attempt to destroy Microsoft when Microsoft has always enabled the little guy to do things that the sudden open source “supporters” have started doing… Sun,Oracle,IBM …who are USING the community for their own long term goals and you guys are falling for it. Like I said if they get their way all the independant developers will get screwed when they try pushing their settop dumb terminals on everyone which you will not be able to develop on…Microsoft has been protecting people from that crap…take BlueRay vs HDDVD for example….if Sony gets its way …no more burning disks… Microsoft DEMANDS PCs continue to allow people to use them how ever they want …. AND they let the businesses use DRM if they want to but those businesses must make that decision NOT Microsoft …that way the consumer doesnt have to take DRM crap CDs just to use them on Windows…. Think about that…maybe the open source is being coopted by the very people that believe in locked down systems that down allow coders to do what they want… That is not Microsofts way and never has been…
One more thing. Oracle has since abandoned their Network Computer initiative to focus on what they do best: Databases and enterprise software.
But the dream still lives >-)
March 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pmGerald, I think you mistake what we are trying to tell you.
Your experience and hard work are appreciated and we are glad for you. We mean to say, not that you don’t matter. You do. We mean to say that our beliefs are just as valid as yours, and no amount of prideful strutting by you will change our views.
Go along & get along. We don’t want to sink you. We would like you to consider that what is right for you may not be everyones best answer.
And yes, you do come off as somewhat elitist in your stance. This is an eglitarian crowd. We don’t appreciate someone telling us (repeatedly) how much they know best.
Happy St patties Day, none the less.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:16 pmGerald, I see. So you actually didn’t have any knowledge about Microsoft’s theft of others’ technology, or Microsoft’s development cycles and versions, or how companies invest in software product development, or anything that you were spouting off on. You’re just a Bill Gates fan.
That’s fine, and you’re entitled to your opinion, now matter how stupid I may think it is. But you are not entitled to make up your own facts, and all you did was reveal yourself to be ignorant.
I’m struck with how much you sound like an evangelical, born again by the product of Bill Gates than by the grace of Jesus. The world you inhabit was created in 1993, when Bill Gates said “let there be Windows” and Windows 3.1 sprang into life? Do you realize that Gates’ first presentation of Windows was at COMDEX 1983 and that were several prior creations with Gates playing the role of the Destroyer of Worlds?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:19 pmDucktape you are a loony…
I gave a great deal of detail about what I did know.
Your hatred for Windows appears to be jealousy … a common human flaw.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:22 pmkindness
Last I checked there was no big attack on open source….there IS a big attack on Microsoft. And when any Microsoft person tries to defend Microsoft it is an attack on open source… do you not see how that logic works out just like the rightwingers argument that if you are not on their side then you must be hating America? Open source is great, but your attacks on something that has been a positive force like Microsoft is not well placed.
There is nothing wrong with selling software and there is nothing wrong with giving it away either…. but some people seem to think there is only one way…
March 17th, 2006 at 5:25 pmAnd yes, you do come off as somewhat elitist in your stance. This is an eglitarian crowd. We don’t appreciate someone telling us (repeatedly) how much they know best.
Sorry kindness… There is no “best”. The Microsoft world brought us to where we are today and it didnt do it by killing people or enslaving them…it was done with brains and hard work…. just like open source. ALL of the Microsoft people I know love the open source idea…. all of the freely available software and know how has helped propell the computing world light years ahead of where it would have been otherwise… That same attitude does not come from the open source community …they attack Microsoft, they lie about Microsoft… they think there is some big bad plan in Bill Gates brain to take over the world or something. The Microsoft people I know seem much more reasonable… they dont care where the software comes from as long as they themselves can put their fingers in it… So why not the same attitude from everyone else? I could understand TOTALLY if you had a real beef … like Microsoft hiring slave labor in indonesia or something. Where is the REAL problem?
Elitest? When you support open source and Microsoft that doesnt leave much room for elitism … its the people that constantly say that Microsoft doing exactly what it has always done is some kind of an attack on open source even though open source wasnt even around when Microsoft was on its way up… Maybe YOU are being an elitist by not accepting that Microsoft is not out to get you? Maybe?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:34 pmGerald, I see. So you actually didn’t have any knowledge about Microsoft’s theft of others’ technology, or Microsoft’s development cycles and versions, or how companies invest in software product development, or anything that you were spouting off on. You’re just a Bill Gates fan.
What are you talking about? I specifically said I have been writing software professionaly for about 12 years now. I have been in this industry for a while and have read all the same crap about Microsofts “theft” as you have. I have learned how Microsofts development cycles work BECAUSE THEY PUBLISH IT TO TEACH OTHERS HOW. Look up all the books and magazines and whitepapers and MSDE study guides …on and on and on… Microsoft has a huge and comprehensive library of literature explaining exactly how to develop software successfully… You do NOT have to work there to get that info which is EXACLY what I was talking about …they support their community to an unbelievable degree. And I know EXACTLY how companies invest in software development because I have been the one paid that money to make that software OR I have been the one making those decisions. How did you not get that from my very detailed posts? Oh you didnt read anything but the first 3 sentences? ok well that maks sense now.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:39 pmLinux is not considered seriously by most people.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 17, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
I beg to disagree. I don’t have an ax to grind whatsoever, but I am afraid you are sorely wrong on this one. Linux alone has in the vicinity of 26% of the server market share vs 35% for MS Windows (NT & 2k combined). Maybe you are talking about the client side.
Also, I forgot to mention Apache with roughly 66% of the market share.
Firefox is an end user application
I thought that’s what we were talking about: Software, not just developer tools. Am I mistaken?
As for your experience with MySQL -that’s odd. Considering a lot of people are using it as an alternative to Oracle or MS-SQL:
MySQL takes cue from the master
The Era of Open Source: Migrate your Data from MS SQL to MySQL
Successful yes. Replace Microsoft..No.
Right. That’s what we are talking about: Competing not replacing. No?
(…)but the open source community seems to think they must be enemies of Microsoft(…)
No comment -not my opinion.
And in rebutting my take on how Microsoft is expensive compared to open source, you ended up making my point: You have to pay to get Microsoft tools. You don’t in order to get open source equivalents. That makes MS stuff more expensive.
Again, I have no ax to grind. I don’t hate Microsoft but I can see it dispassionately because I was writing software while in college before MS was everywhere -and I am not that old. You seem to think Microsoft cares about you. They don’t. They “take care” of their community because it is good for business, nothing more.
I see Open Source as a very valid business model and viable alternative to the traditional software business.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:23 pm[...] Think Progress recently made a post on their web site about a new proposal for tax credits for open source software tax credits. If you’re a corporation and you develop software, you deduct your costs from your taxes. And, in many cases, you can take an R&D Tax Credit. But if you’re an individual and you develop open source software — i.e., Firefox or WordPress — you eat those costs. [...]
March 17th, 2006 at 7:15 pm[...] Think Progress » An Open Source Tax Credit Individuals developing open source software should have the same tax incentives as corporations, which is why we’ve developed a proposal for an Open Source Tax Credit. [...]
March 18th, 2006 at 2:42 amDidn’t Microsoft sue several Linux vendors a while back in a bid to eliminate them?
March 18th, 2006 at 6:29 am[...] Is an Open Source tax credit a good idea? « New Blackberry [...]
March 18th, 2006 at 1:56 pm33), your “historical” perspective is a fantasy.
I suggest you take a look at a machine called the “Datapoint 2200″ which was available in 1971… (fully TEN YEARS before the first (external, audio-cassette-based!) IBM PC.. and which could hardly have been called a “business” computer). The Datapoint 2200 had an INTEGRATED CRT display and keyboard, digital magnetic storage, and LOOKED like (and was sold as) a piece of office, business equipment. It was designed to go on individual desktops within a business.
Note that Datapoint by the latter 1970s was a “Fortune 500″ companny, so I think that qualfies as a “big” company. Datapoint was connecting its desktop, individual, business computers via a multi-megabit, packet-based LAN (ARCnet) fully four years before the first (NON-networked!) strictly-single-user IBM PC hit the market.
IBM never released any self-written “DOS” for the IBM PC. They released (and sold for several years) their semi-customized version of Microsoft’s, produced (well, sold) under contract to IBM. Perhaps you are confusing IBM’s -mainframe- “DOS” operating system, which was a COMPLETELY different animal.
IBM continued private-labelling a “DOS” product (PC-DOS as opposed to MS-DOS, but they shared at least most of the same source code) (and later, their version of OS/2, which was similarly a joint effort with Microsoft). Due to philosophical differences, Microsoft went one way with NT and Windows, while IBM chose to stay with OS/2 until they finally acknowledged defeat and abandoned the doomed OS/2 product.
If you’re interested in the early days of the microprocessor and the PC, one of the best documents is a thesis (not by me, but which nonetheless is available at my Web site) which documents the role of Datapoint in helping to create the microprocessor, and the personal computer as a business product.
March 18th, 2006 at 4:14 pmThis is a horrible idea.
1.) we’re already trillions in debt. Do we really need another tax break?
2.) If this is allowed, the same principle will require tax credits for almost anything people spend time on. For example, If open source software developers get a tax credit for their time, then why shouldn’t I get a tax credit for the time I spent reading this blog and writing this comment? After all, both are contributions to a published work — what’s the difference?
3.) Unlike donations to charity (which are tax-DEDUCTIBLE, not tax-CREDITS), open-source software work is not a donation to a charitable organization. In contrast, work done on a website for a charity should be (and is) tax DEDUCTIBLE.
March 19th, 2006 at 12:05 pmI am a bleeding heart, I a tax payer, I am a writer of softeware, I am an administrator of that and other software, I a user of free software, and I am an employee of a company that profits from free software…. Yes, I know the meaning of free software. I find that this “community” of ours is more like the “He man women haters” from that old Little Rascels” show. We want to pretend that we are tight but in the end we really don’t seem to like each other… Nothing will change until we of this little geek club that hides out in grandma’s closet writing and thinking our brains are so much better than everyone else’s change (no, this isn’t a blanket statement but it is prevelant… just read any open source forum and see how some newb or what ever gets flamed for not finding the answer on his/her own). You will flame me for writing this but it is true. I believe that if I or any one else writes some software and gives it away then why should we not get a break from the same gevernment that gives Bill Gates a break for charging people for his software. Our community needs to come together. I also don’t understand what it would cost the government at all… After all we are the ones that Bill sues or steals from to make a profit.
If you don’t have some productive alternative to offer you should keep your flame to yourself.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:24 pmI am just interested to know how you propose this would be administered… in an open source project, it’s often difficult to know who did what, and how much…. WHO will be getting the tax break?… the developer(s) who do the most, or the project as a whole?… in that case, I can just join a project, write a couple of lines, and get a tax break! cool!!! Seriously… if you partake in a project as a volunteer, then its a HOBBY… and correct me if I am wrong…. hobbies should not be tax-deductable….. if however, you are working on an open source project within a corporation, well…. do you care? if, on the other hand, you want to develop a serious product on your own (i.e. not a hobby), and you want this open sourced, you have to think seriously about your revenue will actually be generated… tax breaks aint much good if you dont have income too….
March 20th, 2006 at 1:47 amI won’t debat the merit of your idea. If implemented, however, it should be as a grant system, not as yet another amendment to our tax code. The income tax is already absurdly complex, weighing in at more than 50000 pages. Worse, the IRS is astonishingly inefficient. It costs something like $1 for every $4 collected. That’s $100 billion per year in compliance costs, dead weight on our economy.
There is an alternative, the FairTax.org proposal. The FairTax would repeal all income taxes and replace them with a progressive retail sales tax. Imagine no corporate tax. Compliance costs would be about as low as they can go. The effective tax rate would also be lower because of a broader tax base. I urge you to educate yourself. Visit http://fairtax.org today and study it.
March 20th, 2006 at 8:11 am[...] Did you know that Tim O’Reilly blogs? Recently he wrote: Carl Malamud wrote in email: “Thought this open source tax credit initiative might be of interest to you. You might remember this proposal surfacing 8 years ago under the label “hacker tax credit.” Salon wrote about it in 1998. Here’s the original proposal. [...]
March 20th, 2006 at 11:53 amGerald,
Several times in this thread you talk about how Microsoft development software got you in the door for a very low price. I agree. I came in that same door at about the same time (I’m guessing.) That door has slammed shut. A kid today who wants to get into software development (especially without college) will not be able to afford a legal copy of Visual Studio .NET. Even if he could, VB.NET (and all the .NET environments for that matter) have necessarily gotten complex enough to be useful for developing modern professional applications. This necessary change is making the language so complex it is nearly inaccessible for beginners
Look at tomorrow’s Geralds. They are not using Visual C++. They are not using Microsoft products at all. They are using Linux, gcc, PHP, and other open source technologies. (They were using Flash, but Adobe’s going to price that out of reach for talented amateurs.) If you were starting today, I think you probably would be an open source advocate.
(I’ve written books on both .NET and open source technology. Doesn’t make me an expert, but I have done a little bit of real study of the matter.)
April 5th, 2006 at 11:44 amLegal Services Corporation
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:58 pmsoftware development life cycle model
Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there
March 21st, 2008 at 6:04 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 6:02 pmDenese Bye
Researchers probe for web sites on subjects such as this for different motives.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:12 amPussy Mexican Pussy Cheerleader Pussies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pmConsumer Credit Agency
Payday Loan Credit
March 30th, 2008 at 5:04 pmCredit For New Businesses
New Business Unsecured Line Of Credit
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 am