Open source developer Bruno Lowagie is about to set a remarkable precedent in the F/OSS world by restricting any government body in his (and my) home country, Belgium, to use any product that makes use of technology originally developed by him. More specifically, this concerns iText, a free and open source library for creating and manipulating PDF, RTF, and HTML files in Java (also ported to the .NET Framework under the name iTextSharp). iText is embedded in many products and services, including Eclipse BIRT, Jasper Reports, Red Hat JBoss Seam, Windward Reports, etc. and used by major companies like IBM, Adobe and Google.
iText is distributed under the Mozilla Public License with the LGPL as an alternative license, but it is also available through a commercial license, distributed by iText Software. Pretty soon, these licenses will be updated, and Lowagie is now pondering about adding an additional restriction of usage for the product referred to as ‘The Belgian Restriction’ (Dutch): no official government-related institution in Belgium will be allowed to use iText in any of its applications and systems for any version after iText 2.2.0.
The restriction would include any third-party application that makes use of iText too, which means there are a lot of government bodies who would be forced to rewrite or downright replace essential systems to keep on functioning properly (from a technical standpoint, that is). On the other hand, it could also lead to iText being barred from future Linux distributions because of the built-in restriction.
The reason for all this ruckus? Apparently, Lowagie has been forced to cough up nearly 10,000 € over the past few years simply because he’s running been Google AdSense ads on his personal website, which the government erroneously classified as income from corporate activities. He’s been fighting over this for quite a while, but the situation hasn’t been resolved yet so this is another way for him to draw attention to the whole thing. Lowagie points out that iText will still be available under MPL and claims he would be willing to lift the restriction if the dispute were resolved in due time. He added that he’s not only doing this for personal attention but also to poke third-party developers who (ab)use the iText license in dubious ways.
Some commentators are pointing out that this restriction threat sends out the wrong message about the concept of open source, and that this could actually lead to less trust in F/OSS technology from both governments and corporations. I can’t say I disagree with that, but it proves how desperately Lowagie is trying to reverse the decision made by the local IRS, and I happen to have a thing for people who stand up for something.
What do you think?
Innovators and creative thinkers are discouraged by being Belgian. The current (re)volution in media and technology requires swift adaptation and openess. Policy makers should embrace creativity and gain more expertise, quickly.
Tax punishment for crative innovators is narrow minded and not very productive.
That has nothing to do with “tax punishment for crative innovators”.
It makes no sense to *not* require him to pay taxes, just because he writes Open Source software.
If he wants to change the law, he should build momentum for his desire.
I hope the Belgian government doesn’t give in to this idiot.
As I said in another comment below, Bruno can probably get a lot more into detail about the specifics, but I do know he has always correctly paid the taxes on his income, so that’s not the issue.
Hard to explain without knowing the system here in Belgium, but basically the IRS says he’s right, the social security institution says he’s not.
Is he Flemish or from the south? If he is Flemish, tax him!
Is adSense revenue not taxable income? I’m Belgian too, and I’d really like to know…
Not in the US – Federal law bans all Internet taxes until 2012, I believe. Many, many politicians are trying to change this. In the US, federal laws overrule any state and local laws.
Really? What do Google want the tax statement for then? I’d assumed it was so they could tax Americans earning from Adsense.
Income is absolutely taxable.
Your talking about federal sales tax.
There’s no federal sales tax… but many/most states have a sales tax. If you buy from a NY company and ship to a NY home your going to pay a NY sales tax. If you buy from NY and ship to NJ you won’t. Though you legally have to pay NJ sales tax… but few actually do.
paul…
again… whoever you are, you’re a poster child for the adage “… you get what you pay for…”
please don’t give up your day job for tax advice. there is no “federal sales tax. however, if you run a web site, and you generate income from whatever source, then you are obligated to file tax returns at the state/federal level. now, whether you owe anything is a completely different matter.
the issue you are probably referring to has to do with whether a state could try to force you as the site, to collect sales tax from your users on the items that they purchase from your site.
Yes, you have to pay taxes if you earn money with AdSense. No, this doesn’t mean you’re automatically self-employed.
After our recent talks with the Belgian IRS, you can either put your income under “Diverse inkomsten” or “Huur”. However back in 2005, the same IRS advised me to put it under “Diverse inkomsten”.
The problem with “Diverse inkomsten” however was that this category had been moved from “individual taxes” to “corporate taxes” on the tax form. In other words, to the RSVZ it looked as I had been paying “corporate taxes”. As a result the RSVZ considered me as “self-employed”.
This was a clear mistake, acknowledged by the RSZ and the Belgian IRS. But because of this mistake, the RSVZ wasn’t sure what to do, and after waiting 1 year and 2 months (from October 2006 till December 2007), they decided I was self-employed. All that time I didn’t know how much I’d have to pay; only in October 2008, I received a first invoice, with added penalties for “waiting that long to pay”.
If I had declared my Google revenue as “huur”, the RSVZ wouldn’t have made any problem ever, nor would the Belgian IRS have.
It takes about 5 minutes for the RSVZ to “undo” the mistakes of the past, but they refuse.
What can I do about that?
Sounds like a class-action lawsuit to me. Do you guys have those in Beligium? I imagine thousands of people have AdSense income and they are all in the same boat.
yes, sue them. I also support what you have done to draw attention to the matter. Governments have become all powerful self serving incompetencies and need a few lessons to wak them.
of course, adSense revenue is taxable… and Bruno has paid the taxes.
But now, because he declared this revenue and he paid these taxes, they say he’s self employed and they want him to pay the social security for the self employment activity… much more that he earned with adSense.
So the guy is not actually in favor of open source?
The LGPL and MPL don’t support those kinds of restrictions obviously.
Sounds like bait & switch to me.
In my opinion, Lowagie has the absolute right to restrict the use of his software by anyone, particularly *any* government institution, any where, and if they wish to do so, they should pay him “special” [high fees.]
This approach would, hopefully, teach stupid bureaucratic drones not to mess with the rights of private citizens…
paul…
you have no fu*ng clue about what you speak..
just because you can type, doesn’t mean you should!
Tom,
None of what Paul speaks seems to be wrong. As per the law, the copyright holder of a work has the right to restrict his work to any individual body or organization. He also has the right to sell his work to anyone at a higher price.
Tom, it seems you have no fu**ing clue of what you are speaking and why you made this comment. If you have nothing useful to contribute, please consider saving your energy and our time by not posting a comment.
Thanks,
Patricia
Don’t mix up the “right of private citizens” with the right to break the law. I mean, may I now go into a bank with a weapon and angrily ask for money, because I’m a private citizen?
Please stop contributing. Thanks!
RONPAUL2012.COM
If Bruno decides to go through with this, it would also mean that iText is no longer “open source” according to the OSI open source definition (http://www.open...ce.org/docs/osd):
“The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.”
Right. At the moment he does this, it stops becoming a discussion about an ‘open source developer’ and starts becoming a discussion about some random dude with a random, non-open license for his future work. Not the first, won’t be the last.
(His old work, of course, is still available under the non-revocable open source licenses, which the government of belgium can continue to use, if they actually use it at all.)
The new license will only affect future versions of the software. The government can safely use their existing applications as is unless they decide to upgrade.
IMO it’s a bad precedent as it will alienate a number of currently loyal groups and generally muddy open-source waters.
couple of things here…
1st.. if the site is generating revs from adsense.. isn’t that an issue for the approariate gov tac authority? sounds like there’s more/something else going on that the article didn’t touch on.
2nd: And more to the point. Even if he was to impose stricter licensing on the future versions of his tech, all someone would have to do, would be to take the current versions of the code, and do a fork of the code, including the newer portions, to create their own open source for/derivate of the codebase. the GPL that his code is released under would permit this…
3rd: if he wne this route, i’m fairly certain at some time.. his code would be dropped from the linux distribution as it would simply not be seen as being in the spirit of OSS/linux… Not to mention the ‘potential’ legal issues, and the ongoing legal conversations surrrounding it being included in the OS.
there are other apps that haven’t been included in linux (drivers, etc..) due to their licensing issue as well, so this wouldn’t be the 1st…)
4th: He’d be seen as an idiot, but more importantly, for those in the CIO/CTO levels, this would simply through more fuel to the argument that OSS is really a bunch of crap, when someone can at any point in time, decide to take a ‘key’ piece of tech and go home because they want to, essentially hijacking the system…
This is the more critical issue. And this is the issue that MSoft and other closed OS proponents have hinted at for years, that someone could essentially hijack the system, and go home with their ‘ball’ and you the end user is left holding the bag…
But in all honesty… there’s not a lot he can do to stop someone from forking the codebase, and essentailly paralleling what his latest codebase would provide.. unless he closes it!!!
Centos is essentially RH.. forking is nothing new..
peace
1nd: I’ve already paid taxes on that revenue. Read the complete story.
2nd: iText is already available under 3 different license schemes. “The Belgian Restriction” would only affect one of them. You’d still be able to use iText using the MPL; so… why would you need a fork?
3nd: being distributed with Linux distributions isn’t a primary goal for a Java/C# library.
4rd: CIOs and CTOs don’t have to fear a license change: they can always buy a commercial license. See 2nd: iText is available under 3 different license schemes.
Why wouldn’t profits, epecially running in the amount that would require 10,000EURs of tax (even assuming a 50% + tax rate, that’s 20,000EURs of profit), from Google Adsense not be taxable?
I can’t think of a nation on earth where Adsense income would be classed any differently than typical income. If you’re paying tax on your exisiting income, it would stand to reason you’d pay it on this.
I can understand if we were talking small amounts, where the Taxman is unlikely to be interested … but 10,000EURs? That’s a heck of a lot of money, that would usually be taxed.
I’ll let Bruno talk about the specifics, but from what I understand the fees that he’s supposed to pay exceed what he has earned through AdSense by a large margin.
That is my understanding too. The 9000 eur seem to be just penalties. He seems to have paid his taxes as a physical person (which he says he is) and they insist in considering him self-employed.
Check http://www.lowagie.com/ for a very detailed history of the problem, plus some thorough licensing considerations.
Since I (and most people commenting here) am not Belgian and don’t know their fiscal laws, I cannot comment further. But he does seem to be right in his protest.
If it only applies to future versions (and it can only apply to future versions given the existing versions are released under open-source licenses), then it’s really not such a big deal – any developer should be free to take his existing versions and extend it to build the next version… it just means that there will be two branches of the product – one open-source, the other restricted to non-Belgian use… and if I have an open-source project using his library, I know which one I’d have to choose – there is no way I would update my license to pass on those restrictions to my end-users!
@tom: ahh – sorry didn’t notice that you had already made my point
iText is a great piece of software, and I owe Bruno’s book on iText a gratitude for helping me learn Java.
But, anyone that has ever dealt with him directly knows that he doesn’t quite have it all together. (Scan through his list serv for an entertaining read.) Awesome developer, not so awesome public figure.
Here’s hoping Bruno can settle this matter privately.
“Here’s hoping Bruno can settle this matter privately.”
Amen to that.
And yes, as many regulars on the list complain about the “newbie noise”, I try pleasing them with some extra entertainment along with the dry technical answers.
So if i understand it correctly this person wants to punish the whole belgian government and therefore the belgian people (!), which use it services, because of a personal tax dispute ? It also suggests whole government is to blame, it doesn’t make any sense.
iText is also embedded in Spring
so iText out, Apache FOP in
FOP … ? I try to stay away of this beast (not always possible).
How do you reuse code with FOP ? Copy/Paste or external XML entities… hmmm
There’s a word for Bruno Lowagie’s practices: blackmail.
Correction: it’s self defense
Unfortunately this is really irrelevant:
1) All the companies that currently embed IText can simply stick to the current version.
2) If he keeps this up, undoubtedly someone will fork the existing codebase under a normal license.
3) As soon as he puts in this restriction, the software is no longer “Open Source”. Open Source as defined by the OSI explicitly excludes these kind of restrictions.
Its a nice publicity stunt and I wish Bruno the best of luck, but this is no different to if Bruno gave up developing iText.
Paul Fremantle, Apache Committer
1) Correct.
2) Maybe, but they’d need to compete with iText, and that might be difficult because:
3) iText remains available as a F/OSS library under the MPL (without additional restrictions). “The Belgian Restriction” would only affect 1 of the 3 possible licenses under which iText is already available.
Are you saying that software that is available under multiple licenses (for instance GPL and commercial) doesn’t qualify as “Open Source Software”?
Very clearly you don’t understand the concept of open source. In such a case, you should ask questions rather than putting down some stupid points.
How on earth a software that is available as per MPL and will continue to do so is not open source?
This is silly. Copyright is GRANTED by the government in the first place. If the software were needed for some public use, especially in socialist-minded Europe, I seriously doubt a license restriction would be upheld.
In that case, the government would be breaking the law it created. In other words, it would undermine itself. That doesn’t do any good for the government’s image and its prospects in the next election.
Patricia, while that is possible, it’s unlikely. Most copyright laws have exceptions for this kind of thing, and virtually every country has some variation of the concept of eminent domain.
Whether a legal policy is acceptable to the voters is another question, of course.
I recall some company making their software license prohibit use by the US government… but the general consensus was that’s illegal under US law.
Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.
I understand Bruno’s reasons and he’s made a good job at rising attention around his issue with the Belgian tax office but I can’t advise him to stick with this restricted license: somebody will fork his project, other projects and distributions will start using the forked one and Bruno will lose what he has now.
OSS can be Trusted?
“this could actually lead to less trust in F/OSS technology from both governments and corporations.”
It seems to me that it should actually lead to less trust in commercial software. Everyone can still use iText under an open source license, even the Belgian government. But some users (the Belgian government) can’t use it under the non-open source license.
WTF?
Here in the US of A, we pay taxes on our Adsense revenue, just like other income. The law is pretty straightforward about this here, as I learned when I had a court case regarding unemployment compensation a few years ago.
Maybe there’s more going on here, but the guy seems like a John Galt lunatic to me.
I don’t know John Galt, but you probably don’t know Belgium. It’s an absurd country demanding an absurd approach.
Please, before making comments, read the whole story on Bruno’s website: http://bit.ly/K4hcT
If you have ever been in touch with the belgian tax office, you can easily understand that they’ve made a mistake and they don’t want to admit it.
The belgians are really famous for their “Robin Hood” syndrom (trying to cheat with the taxes) because of this: http://bit.ly/fvduy
So the tax office treats the people as cheaters and don’t let them fairly defend their case. I can’t caution Bruno’s reaction, but I fully understand it.
Thanks.
Your reaction makes sense and is much appreciated.
Robin, you don’t understand licensing:
“On the other hand, it could also lead to iText being barred from future Linux distributions because of the built-in restriction.”
No it couldn’t, because iText is dual-licensed. Linux distros distribute it under the LGPL and will continue to do so. The change will not affect them.
The change only affects the companies who buy a different license, which does not obligate them in the way the LGPL does.
In fact, iText is triple licensed since about half a year
And yes, much of the FUD I’m reading, is caused by:
1. either a misconception about F/OSS with multiple licenses (if all of this results in one thing; I hope it’s a better understanding of different licensing schemes);
2. or a misunderstanding of how Belgian taxes work (but that is easily forgiven, knowing how complex Belgian taxes are).
I am very familiar with restrictions that would prevent the distribution of iText in Linux distributions. See slide 25 in my presentation about the IP Review for iText http://www.slid...itext-ip-review
Hope the Belgian government isn’t creating any PDF’s with ColdFusion since it uses iText behind the scenes too.
PS – why can’t I subscribe to comment threads anymore?
Maybe “Tax on Web” ? http://www.taxonweb.be
That would be funny !
Last time I checked the Belgian IRS was using Big Faceless, but I’m 99% RSVZ is using iText.
Yes, but CF ships with a very old iText version. Almost every CF developer I know replaces the old jar with a newer one.
Also in a far away past MacroMedia has done serious efforts to comply with the MPL; so there’s no problem there as “The Belgian Restriction” wouldn’t affect the MPL.
Moreover, the current owner of Cold Fusion, Adobe, is a “friend of the iText project”. I have dinner with their PDF Technical Standards Evangelist about once a year to discuss PDF related issues.
Weird, I’m pretty active in the ColdFusion community and I don’t hear much about folks replacing the old JAR. Anyways, that doesn’t matter much – it works very well in CF.
I wasn’t implying that Adobe wasn’t a friend – I just thought the ‘third-party’ implementation rule would also apply here, but good to hear it won’t!
Best of luck getting the issue resolved!
Wow, how little do you know about tech TechCrunch?
You can’t change license or IP backwards, it is perpetual forwards. Maybe tech crunh can blog about something they know about. Ignorant, and not aware that you are ignorant.
Obvious troll is obvious. Authors have complete freedom to use any license(s) they choose, or none, and change this whenever they like. Doesn’t affect previously distributed copies of course.
You go Bruno. DO what you feel is right since YOU created this software.
Good luck.
It is a tough call. But I would keep things separate.
How much software (open source and other) can not be used by countries found ‘unfriendly’ by the USA? Several software packages even have a specific rule which forbid it’s use in environments involved with nuclear developments. I don’t see a reason why a certain government can’t be restricted using a certain software package (or library).
Regarding the tax issue: in the end it is an organization in Belgium (RSVZ) which states that open source developers by default are self employed when they run AdSense on their website. After paying taxes already this open source developer now has to pay 9.000 EUR EXTRA because ’spending so much time on software development’ is by default a self employed job.
If you have scrolled down to this comment, here are a few things I want to tell you guys and one thing to Bruno in the last paragraph.
It is frustrating to see how many users have expressed their displeasure on Bruno’s move. Most of the reasons they have cited involve iText no longer being open source or a chance of the project forking.
It is frustrating because various people who have made comments should not be making them in the first place because they don’t understand open source licenses at all.
It is clearly specified that iText is available under multiple FOSS licenses and it will continue to do so. The license restriction has been introduced in the commercial license, not the FOSS license. I would request you to go and read a thing or two about FOSS licenses, understand the issue before making discouraging comments here.
Instead of posting such discouraging and idiotic comments with wrong information and FUD, we should be supporting Bruno.
I am an open source user. I use Linux, log4j, log4net, iText, Tomcat, Apache web server, etc. I use them because the FOSS developers wrote them with such high quality and gave them to me for free of cost without any usage restrictions. At this moment, when a FOSS developer of one of the software I use is facing a crisis, I express my support and best wishes to him. All the best, Bruno!!
Fact is: most people are selfish.
They don’t look at the personal situation of an individual; but as soon as they have the (false) fear that individual will take something away (something they took for granted), they start complaining.
For instance saying “So the guy is not actually in favor of open source?” is… crazy. I’ve been writing F/OSS for over ten years now. I left the private sector in 1998 because not one company in Belgium believed in F/OSS.
All in all, I’ve had a fun day reading the overheated discussions; at the same time, I’ve read some interesting questions and remarks.
Fork it. That’s what forking is for.
If forking perfectly well established open source projects which will continue to remain open source is your hobby, why don’t you start a campaign to fork Linux, Apache web servers, etc. along with iText?
Go get ‘em Bruno! I know of a case, in Belgium, where the tax service added a zero to the income of a shopkeeper, and basically she had to pay more taxes than she had earned that year. They refused to admit their mistake. She was forced to sell her business and house (!) and her son had to start working at the age of fifteen (this was my friend). It took TEN YEARS of legal battles until they finally gave in. Did they give back the money they unjustly took? Only partly. The rest they deduct from the taxes she will still pay in the future (she now works as an ambulance driver, which isn’t paid that well, so she isn’t paying a lot of taxes anyway).
Bruno should use all the leverage he has. It only concerns one license, so no need for forking or anything like that. It’s still open source. And thanks for making open source stuff, too!
Bruno Lowagie has expressed that it is a mistake on the government’s part
“This was a clear mistake, acknowledged by the RSZ and the Belgian IRS. But because of this mistake, the RSVZ wasn’t sure what to do, and after waiting 1 year and 2 months (from October 2006 till December 2007), they decided I was self-employed.”
(extracted from the Bruno Lowagie’s comment)
It will definitely help if Techcrunch put Bruno Lowagie’s explanation into main post so that people do not speculate on the event.
Please update this article with the facts and Bruno Lowagie’s explanation. Its pretty confusing right now