A middle ground between MIT and GPL
August 15, 2018 6:36 AM Subscribe
Harberger Taxation and Open Source - "A novel approach to creating a self-sustainable digital commons" (via)
Harberger’s model for a self-assessed tax required individuals to set the value of their property and pay taxes based on their self-assessed valuation. To ensure that it is in the interest of the individual to self-assess accurately, they are required to sell their property at their self-assessed valuation if they are approached by a buyer.
Any system which contractually compels participants to acquiesce to wealth is not a system worth participating in.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:49 AM on August 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
Any system which contractually compels participants to acquiesce to wealth is not a system worth participating in.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:49 AM on August 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
It's an idea - interesting - but, self-assessed? We can't even get businesses to properly follow the GPL/LGPL as it is.
And... in today's reality it still highlights what is mostly a non-issue.... Derivative works.
In the last 15-20 years, commercial enterprises have built giant empires using open-source - but, their products are not the software itself, but services they provide - "in the cloud"... Therefore, these organizations never need to release the source code, because they are not building derivative software.
Some players do contribute back into the overall ecosystem (i.e. Google was good in the past, I am not sure about their current participation levels) - but then, many of those begin building their own projects (i.e. Rust) - which compete for developer mindshare/skills over existing projects. Those projects may be technologically sound - or even superior, but their intention is to support the primary player.
This is what the current model is - attempt to win & keep as many developers within your ecosystem as possible -- play well with others (even Microsoft has learned that) - but still keep them on-brand.
(Sorry to pick on Google - I am sure every major tech player; Amazon, Google, Microsoft & Apple has many many examples as well)
posted by jkaczor at 6:53 AM on August 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
And... in today's reality it still highlights what is mostly a non-issue.... Derivative works.
In the last 15-20 years, commercial enterprises have built giant empires using open-source - but, their products are not the software itself, but services they provide - "in the cloud"... Therefore, these organizations never need to release the source code, because they are not building derivative software.
Some players do contribute back into the overall ecosystem (i.e. Google was good in the past, I am not sure about their current participation levels) - but then, many of those begin building their own projects (i.e. Rust) - which compete for developer mindshare/skills over existing projects. Those projects may be technologically sound - or even superior, but their intention is to support the primary player.
This is what the current model is - attempt to win & keep as many developers within your ecosystem as possible -- play well with others (even Microsoft has learned that) - but still keep them on-brand.
(Sorry to pick on Google - I am sure every major tech player; Amazon, Google, Microsoft & Apple has many many examples as well)
posted by jkaczor at 6:53 AM on August 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
Harberger’s model for a self-assessed tax required individuals to set the value of their property and pay taxes based on their self-assessed valuation. To ensure that it is in the interest of the individual to self-assess accurately, they are required to sell their property at their self-assessed valuation if they are approached by a buyer.
What could possibly go wrong?
posted by Naberius at 7:14 AM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
What could possibly go wrong?
posted by Naberius at 7:14 AM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
I just wanna skip over to the timeline where GNU and the GPL resulted in all software everywhere being free and open, and wherein the digitization of human social relations and the ever-increasing significance of software as a means to control production therefore resulted in the gradual establishment of full communism.
is that too much to ask? are there any sliders here who could help me out?
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:40 AM on August 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
is that too much to ask? are there any sliders here who could help me out?
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:40 AM on August 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
Any system which contractually compels participants to acquiesce to wealth is not a system worth participating in.
What about a system that forces business participants to sell their goods to everyone, even if the client is, say, a racial minority? Or provide services to a gay couple? Is that a system you don't want to participate in?
This actually places an interesting constraint or double-bind on the participants. If it is important your derivative work stay private, you must self-assess a high tax such that it is unlikely it will be bought out and that if it is bought out, you are made whole. But of course, then you are paying more tax and John Galt hates that with a passion.
posted by jsturgill at 8:32 AM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
What about a system that forces business participants to sell their goods to everyone, even if the client is, say, a racial minority? Or provide services to a gay couple? Is that a system you don't want to participate in?
This actually places an interesting constraint or double-bind on the participants. If it is important your derivative work stay private, you must self-assess a high tax such that it is unlikely it will be bought out and that if it is bought out, you are made whole. But of course, then you are paying more tax and John Galt hates that with a passion.
posted by jsturgill at 8:32 AM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
It’s an interesting idea because when he says “contractually obligated to sell”, what that means in this context is “contractually obligated to open up the source”. Which doesn’t really feel like “acquiescing to wealth”, exactly.
i’m sure it poses problems but it is a thought provoking idea.
posted by vogon_poet at 8:35 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
i’m sure it poses problems but it is a thought provoking idea.
posted by vogon_poet at 8:35 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
@vogon_poet, I think "contractually obligated to sell" means exactly what it says: if I think I can get more out of owning your software than your self-assesed value, I can force you to sell it to me. Then, if I pay tax on that value, I can keep it private.
posted by spacewrench at 8:47 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by spacewrench at 8:47 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
in part 3 of their hypothetical license they say if you get paid the money, you must immediately open source. which is different from the tax as they describe it initially and doesn’t seem as awful as that would be.
posted by vogon_poet at 8:55 AM on August 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by vogon_poet at 8:55 AM on August 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
I can't see this working anywhere with robust moral rights.
posted by scruss at 8:57 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by scruss at 8:57 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
It’s an interesting idea because when he says “contractually obligated to sell”, what that means in this context is “contractually obligated to open up the source”. Which doesn’t really feel like “acquiescing to wealth”, exactly.
Except that it is, though. This sort of issue is at the heart of one of the ticking time bombs that open source needs to deal with - the whole "you get to use Google's code and Google gets to use yours" deal more often than not works out a lot better for Google because they are a multibillion dollar corporation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:03 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Except that it is, though. This sort of issue is at the heart of one of the ticking time bombs that open source needs to deal with - the whole "you get to use Google's code and Google gets to use yours" deal more often than not works out a lot better for Google because they are a multibillion dollar corporation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:03 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Ah, you're right. I had made that modification in my head. If they went with "buyer must open source," that's lousy. I was looking at it as a way to force people to give accurate valuations on which taxes are paid. And from that perspective, it's a good idea, though not much different from a fair cake-dividing protocol.
Anyway, since this involves people with money paying for their use of the commons (which they get now for free), I don't imagine it will go anywhere.
posted by spacewrench at 9:09 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Anyway, since this involves people with money paying for their use of the commons (which they get now for free), I don't imagine it will go anywhere.
posted by spacewrench at 9:09 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Any system which contractually compels participants to acquiesce to wealth is not a system worth participating in.
What about a system that forces business participants to sell their goods to everyone, even if the client is, say, a racial minority? Or provide services to a gay couple? Is that a system you don't want to participate in?
Holy incoherent gotcha, Batman!
The Harberger model relates to property, not goods. Under the Harberger model, you would assess the value of your home and then be forced to sell it for that amount to the first person with the funds to do so. That clearly privileges those with lots of excess capital since, under that model, people can't say no to others who want to purchase their homes. People couldn't protect against that by inflating their assessments because, presumably, they wouldn't be able to cover the taxes. So, riff on your example, gentrification would be completely unstoppable under such a system since REITs, developers or giant corporations could, by right, buy up entire neighborhoods with the homeowners having exactly zero in recourse. And then another corporation could instantly buy the neighborhood for slightly more money, creating an extraordinarily rapid inflationary cycle. *That* system, which would by design immediately displace large populations of the unwealthy, is definitely on my "to not participate in" list.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:16 AM on August 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
What about a system that forces business participants to sell their goods to everyone, even if the client is, say, a racial minority? Or provide services to a gay couple? Is that a system you don't want to participate in?
Holy incoherent gotcha, Batman!
The Harberger model relates to property, not goods. Under the Harberger model, you would assess the value of your home and then be forced to sell it for that amount to the first person with the funds to do so. That clearly privileges those with lots of excess capital since, under that model, people can't say no to others who want to purchase their homes. People couldn't protect against that by inflating their assessments because, presumably, they wouldn't be able to cover the taxes. So, riff on your example, gentrification would be completely unstoppable under such a system since REITs, developers or giant corporations could, by right, buy up entire neighborhoods with the homeowners having exactly zero in recourse. And then another corporation could instantly buy the neighborhood for slightly more money, creating an extraordinarily rapid inflationary cycle. *That* system, which would by design immediately displace large populations of the unwealthy, is definitely on my "to not participate in" list.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:16 AM on August 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
This feels a lot like a dual license where one license is copyleft and the other lets you keep your derivative work proprietary, except instead of paying the copyright holder, you pay a tax.
But the license fees for dual-licensed works are going to be taxed as income anyway (for the copyright holder) and the mechanism for determining what such a fee should be is the normal one for selling proprietary software.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:20 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
But the license fees for dual-licensed works are going to be taxed as income anyway (for the copyright holder) and the mechanism for determining what such a fee should be is the normal one for selling proprietary software.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:20 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
You've got a bad analogy there, @grumpybear69. A better one might be:
You build your house on publicly-owned land, or on somebody else's property. You have permission to do so, and you do not lease the land, but you are required to say how much value the land has to you, and to pay taxes on that value.
If somebody comes and pays the value you declare, then you have to sell your house.
If you don't want the risk of being forced to sell, then don't build on the commons.
posted by spacewrench at 9:26 AM on August 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
You build your house on publicly-owned land, or on somebody else's property. You have permission to do so, and you do not lease the land, but you are required to say how much value the land has to you, and to pay taxes on that value.
If somebody comes and pays the value you declare, then you have to sell your house.
If you don't want the risk of being forced to sell, then don't build on the commons.
posted by spacewrench at 9:26 AM on August 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
housing is an obvious problem with the more general Harberger tax idea. the other outrageous situation I imagined was waiting at a red light and some guy with a briefcase full of gold Krugerrands being like "out of the car, asshole".
apparently this Harberger guy was an economic advisor to Pinochet, so it's totally possible that ordinary people being debased and humiliated by the wealthy is intended and desirable.
still, in this specific setting, where the money can only compel you to give your work to the commons, and only if you built on free software anyway, it seems much less objectionable.
posted by vogon_poet at 9:29 AM on August 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
apparently this Harberger guy was an economic advisor to Pinochet, so it's totally possible that ordinary people being debased and humiliated by the wealthy is intended and desirable.
still, in this specific setting, where the money can only compel you to give your work to the commons, and only if you built on free software anyway, it seems much less objectionable.
posted by vogon_poet at 9:29 AM on August 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
jkaczor, the AGPL "solves" the derivative works issue. But perhaps too well -- Google refuses to use AGPL software. Which at least seems to indicate the AGPL's provisions have teeth.
A harberger license might offer sufficient middle ground. Google might reason: We can pick a high enough valuation that it's not viable for a competitor to pay it (eg two orders of magnitude higher than the cost to build the derivitive work), and we can absorb the extra harberger tax with little burden, taking it out of our current open source marketing budget.
Maybe.
posted by joeyh at 9:39 AM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
A harberger license might offer sufficient middle ground. Google might reason: We can pick a high enough valuation that it's not viable for a competitor to pay it (eg two orders of magnitude higher than the cost to build the derivitive work), and we can absorb the extra harberger tax with little burden, taking it out of our current open source marketing budget.
Maybe.
posted by joeyh at 9:39 AM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
On further consideration, it's unhelpful to mix tangible and intangible property in analogies here. Of course if you bought a million dollars worth of construction supplies, or $100k worth of metal, glass and plastic, and built a house or a car with them, then you'd be loath to lose them based on a $100 piece of open-source code you used. Nor would you want to pay the "open source" tax on all the stuff you added.
Sticking with just IP, and within IP, sticking with open-source code:
If you built a complete functional application on an open-source makefile template, then you created most of the value there, and you wouldn't want to either lose it for the cost of the template, or pay the open-source tax on all your work.
On the other hand, if somebody else open-sourced a complete, functional infrastructure and you added some sexy graphics that made it a killer app, maybe you should value the open-source part highly, and lose it all if you don't.
The limit cases are problematic, but perhaps this approach will serve as a catalyst to get people thinking about alternatives to the current system.
posted by spacewrench at 9:51 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Sticking with just IP, and within IP, sticking with open-source code:
If you built a complete functional application on an open-source makefile template, then you created most of the value there, and you wouldn't want to either lose it for the cost of the template, or pay the open-source tax on all your work.
On the other hand, if somebody else open-sourced a complete, functional infrastructure and you added some sexy graphics that made it a killer app, maybe you should value the open-source part highly, and lose it all if you don't.
The limit cases are problematic, but perhaps this approach will serve as a catalyst to get people thinking about alternatives to the current system.
posted by spacewrench at 9:51 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
When I create a software project in my "free time", I almost always adopt the GPL license for it. This is not because I worry that if I choose a permissive license, I will not receive fair monetary compensation from someone who incorporates it in proprietary software; rather, it is because I wish to create software that stands apart from the model of commercial software.
If you want me to consider a permissive license, then let's find a different middle ground. For instance, drop the "complete corresponding source code" type clauses; and instead go in the direction of "no contractual prohibition or technical measures against modification and reverse engineering" of the derived/incorporating software (and no prohibition of free communication about the same).
But such a license would be anathema to commercial interests just as much as the GPL is because it goes right to the heart of what modern commercial software is: a box that is carefully welded shut so that you can't disable intrusive tracking and advertising to mention just one class of colossal anti-user misfeature that we are soaking in at every moment.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 10:18 AM on August 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
If you want me to consider a permissive license, then let's find a different middle ground. For instance, drop the "complete corresponding source code" type clauses; and instead go in the direction of "no contractual prohibition or technical measures against modification and reverse engineering" of the derived/incorporating software (and no prohibition of free communication about the same).
But such a license would be anathema to commercial interests just as much as the GPL is because it goes right to the heart of what modern commercial software is: a box that is carefully welded shut so that you can't disable intrusive tracking and advertising to mention just one class of colossal anti-user misfeature that we are soaking in at every moment.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 10:18 AM on August 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
On the one hand, being compelled to sell private property just because someone ponies up the money sounds awful.
On the other hand, the idea of companies paying taxes on an "assessed" value of $X when we all know something is worth $Y feels like it should have a recourse. "Oh if it's really worth $X then you'd be happy to sell it to me for $X, right?" seems like a fair retort.
This sort of system seems perfect for corporate taxes where it's "all business," and should either have carve-outs or complete exemption for residential/personal matters.
posted by explosion at 10:33 AM on August 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, the idea of companies paying taxes on an "assessed" value of $X when we all know something is worth $Y feels like it should have a recourse. "Oh if it's really worth $X then you'd be happy to sell it to me for $X, right?" seems like a fair retort.
This sort of system seems perfect for corporate taxes where it's "all business," and should either have carve-outs or complete exemption for residential/personal matters.
posted by explosion at 10:33 AM on August 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Neat idea. But, I have a hard time imagining why anyone would choose a "self-assessed valuation" less than a hundred billion dollars. The third clause seems like a non-starter.
posted by eotvos at 10:33 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by eotvos at 10:33 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
eotvos because then you pay X% of a hundred billion dollars. X is chosen by the owner of the software you're licencing.
posted by joeyh at 10:37 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by joeyh at 10:37 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Price points, dude, price points. 98 billion will attract many more buyers.
posted by sammyo at 10:37 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 10:37 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
because then you pay X% of a hundred billion dollars. X is chosen by the owner of the software you're licencing.Ah - that makes more sense. Thanks. (It's also not at all obvious from the linked article alone.)
posted by eotvos at 10:59 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
> X is chosen by the owner of the software you're licencing.
Where did you get this? I couldn't find this in the article. It's extremely important how the tax gets set: the licensed software could be a very small value-add to the overall software product, or the product could be a very small value-add on top of the licensed software. In the former case the % should be very low, and in the latter case it should be very high -- but in each case the product owner has an incentive to minimize the % and the license owner has an incentive to maximize the %.
This seems to be blockchain-BS, backed by Radical Markets BS.
posted by ReadEvalPost at 11:30 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Where did you get this? I couldn't find this in the article. It's extremely important how the tax gets set: the licensed software could be a very small value-add to the overall software product, or the product could be a very small value-add on top of the licensed software. In the former case the % should be very low, and in the latter case it should be very high -- but in each case the product owner has an incentive to minimize the % and the license owner has an incentive to maximize the %.
This seems to be blockchain-BS, backed by Radical Markets BS.
posted by ReadEvalPost at 11:30 AM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Except that it is, though. This sort of issue is at the heart of one of the ticking time bombs that open source needs to deal with - the whole "you get to use Google's code and Google gets to use yours" deal more often than not works out a lot better for Google because they are a multibillion dollar corporation.
Google is to open source what it is to reading rss feeds of blogs.
Ars Technica: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary - From the archives: Android is open—except for all the good parts.
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:18 PM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
Google is to open source what it is to reading rss feeds of blogs.
Ars Technica: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary - From the archives: Android is open—except for all the good parts.
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:18 PM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
ReadEvalPost the owner of the software determines the license terms. (Assuming that this tax/forced sale idea can be shoehorned into copyright licensing at all.) The tax percent would be part of the license terms.
There would be an incentive for companies to negotiate with the software owner for a license with a lower tax rate, much as there's currently an incentive for them to negotiate for a more permissive license.
posted by joeyh at 12:46 PM on August 15, 2018
There would be an incentive for companies to negotiate with the software owner for a license with a lower tax rate, much as there's currently an incentive for them to negotiate for a more permissive license.
posted by joeyh at 12:46 PM on August 15, 2018
I'm fairly sure every company I've ever worked for would put software licensed in this manner in the same bin as GPL—do not touch. (Please note this is my opinion, not the opinion of my employers, past or present.)
posted by jeffamaphone at 1:14 PM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffamaphone at 1:14 PM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
As I see it there are two options:
1) You want your software to be used above all else, and the only thing you care about is that people don't pretend they wrote it. BSD or MIT licenses provide this. (Although I will admit that they could do with a strengthening of the requirement for attribution as it pertains to hosted solutions, web apps, etc.)
2) You want your software to remain open-source, modifiable, and share-able above all else. For this you pick GPL or AGPL (the former for traditional distribution, the latter if someone's likely to build a web-based thing on top of it.)
Now here's the problem:
#1 helps adoption.
#2 hurts it.
In my opinion it comes down to pragmatism vs. idealism. If you want to release something to the world with the express purpose of that code helping people, even if they don't share your software economics views, you go with #1. If you want to release something to the world as a way of spreading what you believe to be a good model for sharing code, you go with #2.
As to which is "better"? That depends entirely on what your goals are. But neither approach is "wrong" or "broken" any more than the other.
posted by -1 at 2:55 PM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
1) You want your software to be used above all else, and the only thing you care about is that people don't pretend they wrote it. BSD or MIT licenses provide this. (Although I will admit that they could do with a strengthening of the requirement for attribution as it pertains to hosted solutions, web apps, etc.)
2) You want your software to remain open-source, modifiable, and share-able above all else. For this you pick GPL or AGPL (the former for traditional distribution, the latter if someone's likely to build a web-based thing on top of it.)
Now here's the problem:
#1 helps adoption.
#2 hurts it.
In my opinion it comes down to pragmatism vs. idealism. If you want to release something to the world with the express purpose of that code helping people, even if they don't share your software economics views, you go with #1. If you want to release something to the world as a way of spreading what you believe to be a good model for sharing code, you go with #2.
As to which is "better"? That depends entirely on what your goals are. But neither approach is "wrong" or "broken" any more than the other.
posted by -1 at 2:55 PM on August 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
2) You want your software to remain open-source, modifiable, and share-able above all else. For this you pick GPL or AGPL (the former for traditional distribution, the latter if someone's likely to build a web-based thing on top of it.)
#2 hurts it.
That is only true if you focus on "developers" as consumers of your software. If, however your users are just people wanting to get a job done in their respective domains (business, government, etc.), then actually, #2 is the best way to ensure your software will be widely used.
It only hurts adoption in cases where an organization is actually performing software development and does not want to be encumbered by licensing restrictions as jeffamaphone mentions (I have seen this policy at many organizations - sometimes it makes sense (consultancy, software dev shop), sometimes it does not (government).
posted by jkaczor at 3:30 PM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
#2 hurts it.
That is only true if you focus on "developers" as consumers of your software. If, however your users are just people wanting to get a job done in their respective domains (business, government, etc.), then actually, #2 is the best way to ensure your software will be widely used.
It only hurts adoption in cases where an organization is actually performing software development and does not want to be encumbered by licensing restrictions as jeffamaphone mentions (I have seen this policy at many organizations - sometimes it makes sense (consultancy, software dev shop), sometimes it does not (government).
posted by jkaczor at 3:30 PM on August 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Some players do contribute back into the overall ecosystem (i.e. Google was good in the past, I am not sure about their current participation levels) - but then, many of those begin building their own projects (i.e. Rust) - which compete for developer mindshare/skills over existing projects. Those projects may be technologically sound - or even superior, but their intention is to support the primary player.
The mention of Rust in this sentence surprised me. Rust was developed at Mozilla in order to improve its browsers. Google has pretty much nothing to do with Rust.
posted by nnethercote at 1:48 AM on August 16, 2018
The mention of Rust in this sentence surprised me. Rust was developed at Mozilla in order to improve its browsers. Google has pretty much nothing to do with Rust.
posted by nnethercote at 1:48 AM on August 16, 2018
Rust was developed at Mozilla in order to improve its browsers.
Ooops - got Rust confused with Dart.
posted by jkaczor at 5:37 AM on August 16, 2018
Ooops - got Rust confused with Dart.
posted by jkaczor at 5:37 AM on August 16, 2018
« Older Does the pillow of an insomniac feel impotent? | Polly want some soap to clean out that mouth Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by q*ben at 6:46 AM on August 15, 2018 [7 favorites]