Hacker News Reader

Comment by dataflow | Hacker News Reader

> The rule as written means contractors who write Windows drivers could deduct their expenses (as they would have no residual rights to a closed-source work product), but contractors who write Linux drivers may not (as they would have some rights to open-source Linux drivers).

Is it just me or are you conflating two orthogonal things?

An open-source Windows driver would have the same issue, no? And a closed-source proprietary Linux driver privately written for some company wouldn't have this issue either, right?

View on HN

I could see it being inferred that way but, the way I read it, they are not meant as unilateral facts. Rather, they serve as rhetorical examples of where you might find contractors doing similar work, but where the one more in service of "public good" is taxed higher because it's open source. Strictly speaking, Windows bits are not all closed source and there exist closed source Linux bits. But it's not a point that really matters in the context of the conversation.

I think it's fair to use Windows and Linux as stand-ins for closed vs open source because it's a very accessible example. And knowing the technicalities clearly doesn't undermine the argument.

> I think it's fair to use Windows and Linux as stand-ins for closed vs open source because it's a very accessible example

We're talking about businesses here that would struggle with these tax rules. Which I guess is, mainly, contractors or startups. How common is it for them to write open-source drivers vs. closed-source ones? I would've imagined the majority of drivers in such cases are closed-source, on every platform. But I would find it interesting to hear if things are somehow different on Linux.

Linux kernel drivers often end up being GPL'd, but out of tree. This is because Linux releases many very useful (and sometimes critical to the use-case!) functions behind a GPL-license API restriction. This is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.

Are you sure this is exactly what it means? You're basically saying that if I start hacking on a driver that consumes such an API tonight, I must release it as GPL somewhere publicly the moment I start consuming the API? I can't even work on it for a bit privately?

I'm surprised if so, because usually these sorts of licenses only apply if you're redistributing the code, not if you're just using it privately.

What would happen if closed source is [later] released as open?

You're right, the law text doesn't specifically call out the Windows operating system or the Linux operating system. The example you gave of Open Source Windows drivers is valid.

The Grandparent's point about that "it double-dings open source developers" is still correct and poignant even with this clarification.

> The Grandparent's point about that "it double-dings open source developers" is still correct and poignant even with this clarification.

I feel like I'm missing what subset of people this is, exactly. We're talking about businesses here that would struggle with these tax rules. Which I guess is, mainly, contractors or startups. How common is it for such businesses to release their software as open-source, vs. as closed-source? I would've (naively) expected most paid OSS developers to be funded by large organizations/businesses that have plenty of money to fund them, not small businesses/contractors that would be severely impacted by this law. Is this actually a large set of people?

There are lots of small OSS businesses that are contractors to the big companies you mention. My go-to example is Igalia, who work on web browser and other core OSS tech, but there lots of others, some mentioned on the FOSSjobs wiki.

https://www.igalia.com/ https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources

You are correct. I picked this example under the general assumption that the Windows driver would be closed-source, but you are correct that it doesn't necessarily have to be closed source.

The problem goes with the license, not with the OS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com