zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. presen+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 07:21:36
Yeah, I don't really want to subsidize people to work on open-source shitcoins for example. The devil is in the details here.
replies(2): >>palata+s2 >>ffsm8+Jz
2. palata+s2[view] [source] 2026-02-04 07:43:25
>>presen+(OP)
I think that the problem is that "open source" in itself is not volunteering.

Just like "masonry" is not volunteering, even though a mason could volunteer by building an orphanage pro bono. But when they build their own house, it's not volunteering.

I don't even think that being paid for building an orphanage counts as volunteering... does it?

3. ffsm8+Jz[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:56:03
>>presen+(OP)
Subsidize?

What? How are you subsidizing anything when it's just recognized as volunteering?

You can at most put that on your Einkommensteuererklärung for a deduction on taxes...

Calling that's subsidizing, idk man, feels massively overblown?

And the Steueramt would have to agree with your statement, which I doubt it would for 99.9% of software.

The exploit-ability of this seems severely overstated here, but I'm not a lawyer so maybe y'all know something I dont

replies(1): >>accoun+AI
◧◩
4. accoun+AI[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 13:01:55
>>ffsm8+Jz
Tax breaks are very much subsidies.
replies(1): >>987532+Ac3
◧◩◪
5. 987532+Ac3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 02:27:41
>>accoun+AI
A thief only looting half your house is a subsidy.
replies(1): >>accoun+oT3
◧◩◪◨
6. accoun+oT3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 09:12:08
>>987532+Ac3
If the thief keeps looting the full house of others sure. Even more so if the thief uses the loot to provide services you rely on and society as a whole has decided to give the thief the right to loot part of everyone's house.
[go to top]