Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by zizban on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-irs-strikes-again dept.

Jim Nelson of Yorba foundation has a hair raising blog post on the reasons IRS denied a 501(c)(3) statute to Yorba:

501(c) is the section of the United States' tax code dealing with tax-exempt organizations. The third type (i.e. 501(c)(3)) are for organizations that are "organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the following purposes: religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or the prevention of cruelty to children or animals".

The Yorba Foundation applied for 501(c)(3) in December 2009. We applied as a charitable, scientific, and educational organization. Remember that we only needed to meet the criteria for one of those to receive 501(c)(3) status.

What follows are the most hair-raising statements in their denial letter and my interpretation and response (IRS' statements are in italics):

You have a substantial nonexempt purpose because you develop software published under open source compatible licenses that authorize use by any person for any purpose, including nonexempt purposes such as commercial, recreational, or personal purposes, including campaign intervention and lobbying.

There's a charitable organization here in San Francisco that plants trees throughout the city for the benefit of all. If one of their tree's shade falls on a cafe table and cools the cafe's patrons as they enjoy their espressos, does that mean the tree-planting organization is no longer a charity?

Mere publishing under open source licenses for all to use does not show that the poor and underprivileged actually use the Tools. ... You do not limit your distribution and do not know who uses the Tools much less if they use them for artistic purposes. ... you do not know who uses the Tools much less what kind of content they create with the Tools.

In other words, we (and, presumably, everyone else) cannot license our software with a GNU license and meet the IRS' requirements of a charitable organization.

The purpose of source code is so that people can modify the code and compile it into object code that controls a computer to perform tasks. Anything learned by people studying the source code is incidental.

Which is like saying the only point of an algorithm is its final answer, and so Einstein publishing E=mc2 offered nothing more to the world than a way to accurately measure the amount of energy in, say, a cube of sugar or a block of cheese. Any deeper learning is incidental.

The development and distribution of software is not a public work even if published under open source or creative commons compatible licenses because software is not a facility ordinarily provided to the community at public expense. ... In the face of such consistency of the key characteristics over four centuries we are constrained from extending the term public works to encompass intangibles such as software.

The "four centuries" of terminology being referenced here is that software is not a lake, dam, bridge, highway, etc. In other words, because 17th century English Common Law doesn't mention IMAP email clients or JPEG decoding, software is not a public work.

And the list of IRS aberrant motivations continue (do RTFA, this space is too short for all of them).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:21PM (#63295)

    Since you are clearly an Orthodox Stallmanite

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:28PM (#63298)

    This is decision fucking stupid and clearly has political motivation behind it.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by CyprusBlue on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:46AM

      by CyprusBlue (943) on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:46AM (#63344)

      Quick, call all the republicans in the house! They HATE when injustices like this occur from the IRS regarding tax exempt status, and will leave NO STONE UNTURNED until this can be solved. They will be RELENTLESS in seeking to make sure that your rights are protected from the IRS in this situation. There is NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM than to make sure that people get their tax exempt status and it doesn't get blocked by politics or the law.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:12AM (#63355)

        republicans[...]HATE[...]injustices
        I like your wicked sense of humor and hope at least 1 someone with mod points judges you to be insightful.

        ...and hoping that sometime soon the other side of the 2-party divide gets an equal opportunity.

        -- gewg_ (who tends to vote Green)

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by CyprusBlue on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:54AM

          by CyprusBlue (943) on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:54AM (#63371)

          Eh, don't get too offended at the perceived one sidededness of the comment. I can't stand grandstanding over complete bullshit from either side, and this was too perfectly aligned of a topic to resist. I can't help the fact that right now it's by far the R's doing it due to their current political situation.

          Every time I hear either side howl over something that they ignored/endorsed for years when they were in power, it makes me twitch.

          See: Domestic/Foreign Spying, Treatment of combatants in the war on terror, etc.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:22AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:22AM (#63389)

            Every time I hear either side howl[...]it makes me twitch
            Yup. Same here.

            don't get too offended
            Not a chance. When I said "witty", there was no subtext.
            My hope that the other side gets zinged wasn't about evening up the score; both the reds and the blues deserve to get blasted loudly and often.

            I wish more folks from other parties would get elected so we could see if they do any better.
            They couldn't do much worse.

            There are some exceptions.
            Barbara Lee and Elizabeth Warren are quite consistent.
            I also happen to agree with their politics, so that helps.

            People in my district/state are still voting against their own best interests, however.
            It appears things are going to have to get even WORSE before folks start voting the way I do. {shudder}

            -- gewg_

    • (Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:02PM

      by tathra (3367) on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:02PM (#63529)

      stupid, sure, but i cant really see any political motivation behind it (except for standard luddism). this basically goes along with how society and the law (incorrectly) sees the internet and computers - not as something integral to society (otherwise ISPs would be common carriers and the internet would be a utility), but as toys for the privileged.

      its just an extension of an already-broken system.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:28PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:28PM (#63300) Journal

    Which corporation(s) has paid K Street for some FOSS slapping?

    What counter spanking do they need for the true LART experience?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:06PM

      by edIII (791) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:06PM (#63318)

      I don't know, but this is something that could make it into a White House petition on their site easily.

      This is beyond ridiculous, into territory that is so clearly filled with corruption and politics, that there needs to have some light shed on it.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:29PM

    by buswolley (848) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:29PM (#63301)

    appeal? Challenge in court? I think that you might find some big supporters out there.

    --
    subicular junctures
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:06PM

      by BsAtHome (889) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:06PM (#63317)

      They should appeal and I think that there could be support from other sides as well.

      The decision also declares that books written under a free license in non-tangible form (i.e. ebooks) are declared non-tax-exempt. Those books could also be used for nonexempt purposes such as commercial, recreational, or personal purposes, including campaign intervention and lobbying.

      *That* should get you on the tip of your chair.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:57AM (#63348)

        They should appeal
        That's the obvious point that everyone else has missed so far.
        This ruling is clearly the result of a corrupt procedure.
        In the process of discovery, Yorba's legal eagles should discover who got paid off and by whom.
        In a just system, criminal charges and convictions would follow.

        there could be support from other sides as well
        The megacorps' cartels have figured out that closing ranks works.
        Why hasn't everyone else figured this out?
        (small business associations, guilds, labor unions, cooperatives, users groups, non-red/non-blue political parties)

        One hopes that the judge easily sees through this and, in the process of delivering his decision, gives the IRS a thorough spanking.

        -- gewg_

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:38PM

    by Lagg (105) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:38PM (#63305) Homepage Journal

    This quote right from the blag post pretty much says it all:

    This does not spell disaster for Yorba. The Foundation’s existence does not hinge on 501(c)(3) status. It certainly would’ve been advantageous if the IRS had granted it. It certainly would’ve been a better world if the IRS hadn’t waited four and a half years to inform us of their decision.

    This is true for almost every open source project because for one thing most projects don't start out or ever reach such a state that they need or want an organization behind it. The vast majority of open source projects are just tools people wrote that they think might be useful to others. For the minority of projects that do need an org, the project itself never depends on it. That's just the nature of open source.

    What this does however show is that it's the future of the IRS at stake here. Not open source software projects. They've proven themselves to be corrupt and obstructive bureaucratic pieces of trash more and more as of late. Whereas before the consensus was that only tax dodgers hated the IRS, it's now becoming that everyone hates the IRS. With pretty good reason too. This hilariously incompetent denial is just another piece of evidence for the pile.

    --
    http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:42PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:42PM (#63306) Journal

      There has never been a time that the IRS hasn't been widely hated. They're still around because they collect US tax revenue, the fuel for all those wonderful things that people want and are willing to spend other peoples' money for. That means they will never ever go away at least until the US ceases to exist as a remotely viable entity.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:46PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:46PM (#63307) Journal

        So when the tax base is gone - so is the country.

        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:53PM

          by cafebabe (894) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:53PM (#63312) Journal

          When the tax base is gone, a country cannot raise an army. A country without an army does not last long.

          --
          1702845791×2
          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:11AM

            by kaszz (4211) on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:11AM (#63354) Journal

            You either have your own army or someone elses as some unknown said ;)

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by buswolley on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:08PM

        by buswolley (848) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:08PM (#63319)

        Im not convinced it is other people's money since I am not convinced that taxes fund expenditures. e.g. Modern Monetary Theory

        --
        subicular junctures
        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:17AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:17AM (#63358) Journal

          since I am not convinced that taxes fund expenditures.

          I don't see that this lack of convincing matters. It's pretty clear that taxes do fund expenditures since tax revenue is much greater than borrowing for the US. Similarly, why would anyone lend to the US, if they didn't expect payback in some form? Tax revenue insures there is a payback.

          • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:08AM

            by buswolley (848) on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:08AM (#63388)

            Ours is a fiat currency. Since the debts of which you speak are in held in U.S. dollars, all debts in that currency are payable merely by issuing sufficient currency by order of fiat, a constitutionally given power. The only real limit to monetary policy is deflation and inflation. For a primer, http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/03/01/0550250 [soylentnews.org]

            --
            subicular junctures
            • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday July 03 2014, @02:30PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 03 2014, @02:30PM (#63593) Journal

              The only real limit to monetary policy is deflation and inflation.

              Ok. So there's the mechanism that enforces the condition I observed.

              • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:37PM

                by buswolley (848) on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:37PM (#63635)

                Yes it enforces the condition, except we have not examined what causes hyper-inflation. Hyper-Inflation occurs when there are to few goods relative to the supply of money. While printing money can lead to inflation, historically this has occurred by exogenous variables that disrupted that capacity to ramp up production to meet demand. Zimbabwe, Germany,et, these occurred because of external pressures or breakages of the capacity to produce more goods and services. Can you name a historical example where hyperinflation occurred merely by printing too much currency and in the absence of a disruption to production capacity? The fact is, at high unemployment, currently there is a shortage of dollars, not the capacity to produce goods and services.

                --
                subicular junctures
                • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 04 2014, @05:04AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 04 2014, @05:04AM (#63984) Journal

                  Can you name a historical example where hyperinflation occurred merely by printing too much currency and in the absence of a disruption to production capacity?

                  You already mentioned Zimbabwe and Wiemar Germany. No society can ramp up production to cover the number of orders of magnitude of currency devaluation of these two examples. Conversely, production disruption was insufficient to cause the degree of hyperinflation observed by many orders of magnitude.

                  Instead, it's worth noting the painfully obvious. The same sort of government which decides that hyperinflation is actually a valid approach, will by its very incompetent nature, disrupt production. This is an obvious common factor between hyperinflation and just about any other unpleasant economic problems a country can face.

                  • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Friday July 04 2014, @04:17PM

                    by buswolley (848) on Friday July 04 2014, @04:17PM (#64218)

                    These examples show that increasing the supply of money when you are at max production is bad. These examples do not demonstrate that countries that are underproducing relative to max capacity should not print dollars.

                    --
                    subicular junctures
                    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 04 2014, @04:55PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 04 2014, @04:55PM (#64239) Journal

                      Neither country was anywhere near something that could be considered max production. But they weren't 6+ orders of magnitude away from it either.

            • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 04 2014, @09:49AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 04 2014, @09:49AM (#64065) Journal

              There's also the willingness of other parties to lend to the country in question or accept the currency as payment. And why do so many people think it is relevant that the observation that a country can "pay" its debts merely by printing a bunch of money? There are huge, negative consequences to such an act - namely, the hyperinflation that you mention in your reply. If a country does that hyperinflation, how is it going to pay for anything in its currency ever again? It's a one time scam which never works again.

              • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Friday July 04 2014, @04:19PM

                by buswolley (848) on Friday July 04 2014, @04:19PM (#64222)

                In a closed system, simply by raising taxes to remove the money from the system.

                --
                subicular junctures
                • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 04 2014, @04:50PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 04 2014, @04:50PM (#64237) Journal

                  In a closed system, simply by raising taxes to remove the money from the system.

                  There's nothing simple about it. The dollar is honored as a medium of exchange because the US doesn't play such games with it. And you can always create a new, informal medium of exchange(say trading fixed units of a commodity) if the currency fails to be adequate to the task.

        • (Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:03AM

          by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:03AM (#63386) Journal

          AIUI, you're making the argument that government expenditures can exist without any revenue at all*, but it proves convenient not to (because the resulting hyperinflation would be awkward); the amount of revenue controls inflation/deflation, and while it should probably be on the order of expenditure, it needs to equal expenditure only if one assumes various other variables (economic growth, desired inflation) to have a value of zero, which is pretty bogus.

          * or at least with such a minimal tax burden as is just sufficient to ensure people actually use your fiat currency.

          That's all well and good, but doesn't seem to change whether or not government expenditures (or at least marginal changes in expenditures) are spending other people's money. The revenue knob just controls how much of this "other people's money" is silently taken via inflation, vs. how much is openly taken as tax.

          If you want to say that the money in question is not other people's money, whether because a god or gods gave the king the right to command obedience in all things, or because those people have participated in some sort of social contract where they receive benefits from the state and/or society, with the implicit agreement to pay back (whether in inflation or tax) whatever it costs to keep those benefits sustainable, or on any other basis, that's fine. But any of those arguments remains equally convincing (some more so than others) whether one takes a classical or MMT view of taxation.

          (If I missed a different/more comprehensive argument meant to be implied by your #include <MMT.h>, sorry, I'm not as economically literate as I should be. But if that's the case, perhaps you could expand... )

          • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:29AM

            by buswolley (848) on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:29AM (#63390)

            My friend and I often have this debate over several beers. It can be argued that currencies with any degree of inflation are currencies that spend other people's money. However, some inflation is necessary because it allows economic growth. In a stagnant economy, the variety of goods available on which to spend that currency is retarded, thus in a real sense, a deflationary currency steals absolute value from the holders of that currency even as they are able to wield greater relative value from that currency.

            Moreover, in a deflationary economy, the successes and failures of future generations are due more to inheritance and rent taking than by self-made men and women determining their futures by the seat of their brow and firmness of their jaws.

             

            --
            subicular junctures
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:11PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:11PM (#63533)

              Moreover, in a deflationary economy, the successes and failures of future generations are due more to inheritance and rent taking than by self-made men and women determining their futures by the seat of their brow and firmness of their jaws.

              I wasn't aware that our current economy was deflationary, thanks for informing me.

              • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:39PM

                by buswolley (848) on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:39PM (#63638)

                Our current economy is absolutely deflationary, but many of the symptoms of a deflationary economy are present. They would be made worse with a fixed currency.

                --
                subicular junctures
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:21PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:21PM (#63323) Journal

      Future of IRS is at question, not open source.

      TFT(itle) does include the "future of open source in US", does it not?
      Suppose that, all other things being equal, an Open Source project needs a formally established organization behind it. If IRS continues to play nasty, guess in which country those organizations will tend not to be established?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:24PM

        by Lagg (105) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:24PM (#63325) Homepage Journal

        Honestly, it won't matter either way. The organizations often have no physical presence and are indeed based on a non-US server anyway.

        --
        http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:30PM (#63327)

          > Honestly, it won't matter either way. The organizations often have no physical presence and are indeed based on a non-US server anyway.

          Which is all completely irrelevant. 501c3 status lets people who donate to the group take a tax write-off for the donation. And those people are definitely beholden to US law, else they wouldn't be paying taxes in the first place.

          • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:24AM

            by Lagg (105) on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:24AM (#63337) Homepage Journal

            There are many organizations that are non-profit but not US based at all. Maybe even more than are US based. This is what I was assuming the poster I replied to meant. You can be non-profit without the US government considering you as such you know. I know a lot of my fellow US citizens think otherwise, but should know better by now. It's also relevant to the article itself since they aren't too deeply affected and still can take donations and still consider themselves non-profit. So it's quite relevant. You've just got your head up your ass.

            --
            http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
            • (Score: 1) by Lunix Nutcase on Thursday July 03 2014, @02:58AM

              by Lunix Nutcase (3913) on Thursday July 03 2014, @02:58AM (#63380)

              No, you've simply misunderstood them. They were pointing out that the 501(c)3 status is so that US citizens can make tax-deductible donations. They didn't say that there were no non-profits outside of the US.

              The one with their head up their ass is you.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:48PM

    by cafebabe (894) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:48PM (#63308) Journal

    software is not a facility ordinarily provided to the community at public expense.

    MIT license? BSD license? NHS Open Source Programme? BBC Open Source Projects? Public library software [wikipedia.org]?

    --
    1702845791×2
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by jackb_guppy on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:10PM

    by jackb_guppy (3560) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:10PM (#63321)

    What a joke. This guy wants to whine about a single ruling. Just refile. Call the FSF or one of the others.

    But really, does Yorba really needs a 501c3? Is RedHat 501c3? Conical?

    I help get a lug on the 501c3 bandwagon years ago. It took almost 4 years to get approved. We showed proof of month install fest, reading program, and other general public activities, along with our charter that our bank and state had. We wrote our charter to define who we were, how do we run business, what rules would be included as it went on (any to get and keep the 501c3). We first got space in libraries for meeting open to anyone who walked in. I personally, gave away network cards (mid to late 90s most machine did not have built in ether ports). I brough in a few cases on the pre-ebay site for old stock clearances 2 dollar a card! Hell they were ISA, but they worked. Got people into think of networking their homes. This brough people in and helped at the 501c3 going. They then got access to private space with networking, overhead projectors, and white boards.

    Creating free software is about creating free software. If you expect to have money to keep the doors open, then you need a revenue source. Expecting a hand-out form other companies is not a model for business that creates software - ANY SOFTWARE! They are going to sell something to keep the business going. Even, if it is a service contract or custom additions. Both of which are taxable.

    The companies that operate 501c3 as a sub-entities. YES, sub-entities. They do good works for good works. It is deduction for the parent and parent can help fund raise for the child.

    They need to think of a sustainable business model.

    My background, includes helping on a open source project IPcop. We do it for the fun and limelight. Well, the guys that do all the heavy real work! I just pay the domain bill and evangelize as I find places to do that and have hand-me machines to give away (nothign like a demo, with prise at the end!). We decided going in that as a group we would not take donations as a group, nothing to pay for since use SourceForge for source control and website. That does not mean the developers go hungry. But, if someone wanted to addition to be done directly to IPcop, the developers can contract to do the change as long as it is released under GPL. They could contract and not do it under GPL, but it is outside of IPcop base. If there was new hardware that you need help getting it working, send the developers equipment. Normally, that was left in the hands for testing later as new releases roll out. We add ATM source under that method.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:38PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:38PM (#63328) Journal

      But really, does Yorba really needs a 501c3? Is RedHat 501c3? Conical?

      Conical maybe doesn't, but spherical definitely needs 501c3

      Joke aside, this is not about Yorba being denied a 501c3 statute, it is about the reasons IRS used to justify not granting one.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by Zz9zZ on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:48AM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:48AM (#63345)

        Thank you :)

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:49AM

        by jackb_guppy (3560) on Thursday July 03 2014, @12:49AM (#63346)

        It is about one person (maybe small group) at IRS. It is not the IRS going out to kill free software. Just like patent side, someone marks the box yes or no. It gets mailed. You do not like it, appeal.

        Stop making Free Software into Tea Party group and crying, get over it. It took a lug 4 years to get it. It took patience, keep trying. Showing you mean what you say, not what auditor thinks. Free software was not outlawed, it was some person at the IRS who does not understand, help teach them. Show the value argument.

        In the mean time,
        . Show what you are doing has value, by doing it. Get out there.
        . Live to your ideals. But your money were your mouth is. I gave away NIC cards, to help get and use Linux.
        . Put yourself out there. Do it. Do it. Do it. Show your resolve.
        . Show value to the public. That is the only group that matters.
        . Then point all of this out in your next round with IRS. And the round after that, and after that, and that... Like I said it took 4 yrs for lug.

        The proof is in the actions, not the words.

        Kids today, just don't live though the FUD of nineties.

        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:10AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:10AM (#63353) Journal

          It is about one person (maybe small group) at IRS.

          With the power of the US government backing them up. And they were able to take more than four years to reject that application.

            Like I said it took 4 yrs for lug.

          The current Tea Party scandal is over the IRS creating delays slightly more than two years long. Makes you wonder what enemies are obstructing open software that the IRS will delay that even longer than they'll delay Tea Party group applications.

          The proof is in the actions, not the words.

          Or in the inaction.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:47AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:47AM (#63366) Journal

          . Live to your ideals. Butt your money were your mouth is....

          FTFY
          (just kiddin' nothing malicious)

          It is about one person (maybe small group) at IRS. It is not the IRS going out to kill free software.

          May your assertion hold true, keeping my fingers crossed for it (but not holding my breath).

          It took a lug 4 years to get it. It took patience, keep trying.

          And this was how long ago? Are you positively sure the group in IRS remained as small as it was then? (just asking, not implying anything).

          Kids today, just don't live though the FUD of nineties.

          Anyway, even if you are right in your assessment above, I don't think raising the subject (by Yorba) is so gratuitous and useless as you imply: after all, is part of the control/balance/check that the civil society need to keep on govt.
          (yes, it is my view that, even if Tea Partiers would be exaggerated and maybe wrong in many concerns, they are still valuable for society by the whiff of dissidence they emit. Better than the majority of FB crowd)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Thursday July 03 2014, @04:14AM

            by jackb_guppy (3560) on Thursday July 03 2014, @04:14AM (#63396)

            The IRS is large organization, with many departments and departments heads doing what they each/all think is right and following the laws. Same interpret it one way, others another. it is why there are appeals and lawyers involved. Same with any company and even this Website. It takes one person to mark a box good or bad then write a stupid reason, and move on to the next folder on the desk, to give it all a bad name.

            The lug... 4 years was between 1999 and 2004. We first functioned as not-for-profit corporation, knowing it would take time. Books being audited. Tax forms being filed. Minutes of meetings recorded and filed. Answering questions and doing what we knew was the right path to follow. A few of us had past experience as personal corporations (S-corp). Every year we got closer. The track record spoke for itself. If IRS or the state wanted to send someone out to check us out, we were what we said we were, where we said we would be, doing what we said we were doing.

            Just like getting listed on stock exchange. It takes a track record before filling. At least it use to. :)

            I think Yorba is like any other corporation. The only speech any company can give is advertising. This complaint / whining is to get their name out and point to themselves "See are are the good guys! IRS is trying to take this away from you! You better get while the getting is good!". building a brand, building a market.

            Redhat did it with more class.

             

  • (Score: 2) by gringer on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:06AM

    by gringer (962) on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:06AM (#63350)

    Excellent, so now I can link to my comment [gnome.org] about SoylentNews planning to set up as a benefit corporation. I might as well quote myself for additional redundancy:

    You might be interested in the take that SoylentNews has on this:

    http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/06/13/2235203 [soylentnews.org]

    In short, they expect to be hamstrung too much by non-profit red tape, so will have a go at setting up as a benefit corporation (something that has only been around since 2010).

    I don't recall writing the 'hashcash' bit at the bottom though... must be a javascript thing.

    --
    Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]