Comment by constantcrying
3 hours ago
What is the point? What benefits does an Ehrenamt even bring (fyi I have one) and why would an activity as broad as open source work qualify? Many open source projects are done without any good for the public, why should such a developer get such a title?
If you want any of this, why don't you found a Verein and have open source activities as the purpose?
All in all I an very much against this. Mostly because I think Ehrenämter, as they exist now, are pretty stupid and pointless and because I strongly believe the state should not get involved with this at all.
For non Germans, can you explain what this would mean? I read a machine translation of the article, and basically it seemed to be claiming that forming a tax exempt open source foundation in Germany would be easier if this were approved? But I may be missing some nuance in both the translation and the German legal and tax system to fully understand it?
In the USA, open source foundations can be non-profits, usually they are formed for scientific, and sometimes maybe educational purposes. (The allowed exempt purposes of a 501(c)(3), the most common type used for open source foundations, are "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals".) There are other requirements that must be met for exemption as well.
I am curious how German and US laws differ in this regard, if you happen to know more about it. Thanks!
These are different concepts. What you are describing is an organization not operating for profit, which Germany of course has too. This is about open source contribution being an "Ehrenamt", which is when an individual participates in certain volunteer activities without pay. E.g. being a volunteer firefighter would be such an "Ehrenamt".
This is about recognition for individuals (which is much if what an Ehrenamt even is). Besides some very minor tax benefits, only applicable under certain circumstances, where you earn some money from your Ehrenamt activities, all this is, is an participation award for volunteer work.
I do volunteer work as a treasurer in a charity and I disagree on Ehrenämter being stupid and pointless, but otherwise I agree.
The petitioners seem to be blissfully unaware how civil service is recognized in Germany. Or they are all too much aware and want to undermine transparency requirements by asking for special treatment for open source developers. The charity principle requires to assume the former.
For example, this would allow an open source project to split donations between contributors in a legal way
I don't think that is true at all. Do you have any evidence for this? What about not having an Ehrenamt makes it illegal to split donations?
If you want to have legal protections and a proper governance structure you would found a Verein. Codeberg has a Verein with Gemeinnützigkeit, which seems a superior, already established, way to accomplish this.
Apparantly you can receive up to 840€ per year tax free for it?
No. From the money you receive for your volunteer activities you can get that money tax-free up to 840 Euros. I have not gotten a single cent for my activities, so I have gotten exactly zero benefit from my Ehrenamt in that regard.
Open Source contributers often have a way to send them money. I assumed that this would then qualify for this tax excemption?
Maybe you are right and an Verein would be a better venue for this. What are your concerns with Ehrenämtern?
the point is that it would be easier to have such a verein recognized as being for public benefit.
Would it? E.g. Codeberg is gemeinnützige (for the public benefit) are there any examples of a Verein being denied gemeinnützigkeit based on the fact that open source development is not a recognized Ehrenamt?
> Many open source projects are done without any good for the public
Such as? By definition, open source projects are provided to the public, for free. That’s obviously a good for the public.
Note that in order for something to be a public service, it need not be useful for every member of the public. Most people have no interest in curling, but that doesn’t mean running a non-profit curling club that is open to everyone isn’t a public good.
I'm glad the last FizzBuzz-golfed-in-$esolang I put on the internet was "obviously a good for the public", although I wouldn't mind seeing your reasoning because it isn't clear to me how.
Demonstrating how it’s possible to do something is a public good. This really isn’t complicated unless you’re being deliberately obtuse.
Open-source ransomware?
> I don't see the point
> Therefore I'm against this
Dude.