>>little+gb
Open source is defined by the Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/osd

At least it should be. I'm not sure what definition this petition would use.

>>netdev+p4
> if your contribution is not merged in, it should not count as "work done"

I highly disagree with this. Sometimes someone has to do the work to discover that isn't the work that should be done. As an example, last week, I got in a fight with the Go scheduler: https://github.com/php/frankenphp/pull/2016 -- in the end, we were able to find the one-liner that is a happy-medium. I didn't open that PR, but I did the work; if that makes sense.

>>netdev+p4
Any time you introduce an explicit incentive, however small, to open source work the unintended consequences can become a problem.

The Hacktoberfest incident is a good example: The program offered a T-shirt to people who had a PR accepted. The result was tens of thousands of useless PRs across open source repos and maintainers begging for the program to stop so they could stop dealing with useless PRs. https://joel.net/how-one-guy-ruined-hacktoberfest2020-drama

In a situation like this you can’t assume that the set of people and the type of work being submitted will remain the same as before the incentive appears.

>>Philip+(OP)
Why not petition to change § 52 AO directly? I made such a petition a couple of years ago but didn't get around to promote it: https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/anerkennung-der-...

>>clicke+p6
https://www.folklore.org/Negative_2000_Lines_Of_Code.html

>>within+ke
In a program like this you can’t optimize for the assumption that every participant is acting in good faith and contributing good work even if it’s not accepted.

If a program incentivizes opening PRs even if they’re not accepted, the result will be a lot of maintainer spam from people opening useless PRs. This isn’t a personal hypothetical, it’s what we observe any time programs try to incentivize open source work. See the Hacktoberfest drama of years past where the promise of a T-shirt led to spam PRs across GitHub https://joel.net/how-one-guy-ruined-hacktoberfest2020-drama

>>little+gb
Interestingly there is a DIN standard for open source hardware https://www.dinmedia.de/en/technical-rule/din-spec-3105-1/32...

>>whstl+p7
https://techcultivation.org

>>weinzi+om
https://techcultivation.org is a German broad-spectrum FOSS charity.

Chaos Computer Club is not a charity.

>>asmor+ed
> the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software contributes to the common good

So it should be the FSF's definition of free software, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

>>chairm+6G1
There is Sovereign Tech:

https://www.sovereign.tech/