Yorba, the IRS, and tax-exemption

The discussion in this article is about as loose as I've ever seen here on LWN - I encourage a particular care by LWN editors regarding assumptions implied or direct and non-substantiated statements, made by government departments of any kind (caveat citizen/ caveat government constituency etc):

From The Fine Article:
> It is a tricky problem for the IRS to sort out,

This phrase presumes a problem;

this distinction and/ or presumption ought NOT be glossed over:

I would say (at most) "possible problem from the tax department's perspective only".
From the perspective of "the community" (corporate, education, general public etc), more free libre software == more public benefit - we (corporates, educates and general publicates :) ARE "the public" aka "the community".

> determining whose work is truly in the public interest

Again I assert there are unfounded assumptions being here unchallenged - the tax departments cannot be allowed to get away with such assumptions, and certainly we are contributing to the real problem(s) by speaking in _their_ assumptions!

: Prima facie, the license for the code determines whether that code "is truly in the public interest" - e.g. even if the code in question is some niche specialist area of industry, the fact that that code is under a "community availability, i.e. libre software license" at the very least implies opportunity for competition in the market/industry, with regard to that particular code.

Same thing if the code is more widely applicable, but to an even greater extent - but the point is, even in the most limited sense, free libre code promotes, or at least maximises the possibility of, supplier diversity and therefore competition (and here speaking only to the base economic 'public benefits').

> and who might be developing a standard-issue software product

Aha! This new phrase - "standard-issue software product" (at least in the context of this sentence) - I assert has problems including the following:

1) it tends to normalise non-libre/ non-free software ("standard-")

2) it leads the reader closer towards thinking that there is a genuine problem being raised by said tax department, yet this "problem" has never been clearly stated, let alone proven!

So let's NOT fall into assuming that the tax department's (implied and/ or explicit) assertions are true. Doing so is certainly NOT in our interests!

> but putting an open-source license on it for tax purposes.

Look, I understand that this sentence was possibly intended to somehow "outline" the tax department's (implied or otherwise) allegations - and I hesitate to say even this much (I don't want our esteemed editors to get upset), but I DO want to raise understanding, and raise the quality of the dialog.

By way of (rough) example by suggestion of alternative, the following approach taken in future articles might be more constructive:

"
The tax department (the USA's IRS in this case) appears to have made certain assumptions which really ought be torn to shreds:

- That free libre licensed software is not a public good, and/ or

- That free libre licensed software might not be in the public interest.

- That free libre licensed software does not benefit all (industry) participants equally.

- That tax deductions for the creation of free libre licensed software might somehow be legitimately described as a "tax dodge".
...
"

Such sentences:

- take aim at what the bureaucracy has actually done or implied,

- lay out the fight (brought on by the department by assumption or otherwise) evidently being brought on by government idiots

- make it much easier for those not versed in government deception (or stupidity) (by assumption and otherwise) to understand what is happening, and therefore:

- make it easier for those who might be inclined to start to get a handle on approaches to combat this enemy of freedom and liberty rising its ugly and trollish head!

I hope you agree :)

* It is our DUTY to challenge bureaucracy gone mad!

* It is our DUTY to challenge assumptions - false or otherwise!

* It is our DUTY to each other to be wary and cautious of assumed authority which ordains with its imperious hand waving to dictate to us what is in OUR interest!

* It is our DUTY to NOT assist such crap from bureaucrats by using their assumptions which assumptions are AGAINST our interests as a global community!

And a final word: it seems we tend to implicitly fear the consequences of individual challenges to government bureaucrats and/ or other external authorities, and perhaps this is what leads us to sometimes accept or use those assumptions which have been used AGAINST us.

I say a challenge of the tax department by an individual (or especially a group) is not necessarily difficult per se - time consuming yes, requiring reading the relevant Act(s) and regulations, yes, and getting up to speed with how to write affidavits and other legal documents yes yes lots of work. If you are inspired, I suggest to work with those fine lawyers who have involved themselves in the free libre software community in support of our causes and in support of our community (they're not hard to find), to spearhead and direct in what might need to be done and to guide so we can avoid spending time on overly difficult or potentially fruitless pathways. But we can certainly do our bit regarding the leg work.

Let's stand against idiotic assumptions!

Best regards, and please be extra careful regarding government departments and their (blindly?) idiotic and/ or deceptive bureaucrats and the crappy assumptions they sometimes spout.

Thanks for listening,
Zenaan