Hi everybody,
I got feedback from the finance authorities (see comments from Dec15). And following from that feedback we need to reconsider two things:
###(1) Definitions in statutes?
They have a bit of a problem with the definitions of Open Source and Circular Economy. Of course, both worlds talk about making business but when you want to go tax-free-status you are not allowed to run a business.
So they suggest to change this part or delete it.
I don’t see any way, how to change the definitions part in a way that does not conflict with what they are looking at and totally violating the definitions at the same time. So I would vote for: Deleting that part.
It does not necessarily have to be a problem. Like OSHWA did with the definition of Open Source Hardware we can still create our definition of OSCE and host it prominently. And whenever we have a problem to decide what to do and what not we look at this definition. It does not need to be in the statutes where it can be a source of trouble with law authorities on many occasions.
###(2) The Filter criteria for projects (“Guidelines for projects”)
When you want to receive tax free status in germany you are only allowed to collaborate with other organizations with the same status. So bit 2 and 3 of the “guidelines for projects” make them a bit nervous.
I came up with this solution, to put just this into the statues:
-
that are part of both worlds – Open Source and Circular Economy – at the same time,
-
and are of universal use.
The “universal use” bit explains the same as “that are useful for a broad variety of stakeholders and enables them to do own productive work” did before but does not mention other organizations.
And the 3rd bit (“that can in the short-term or mid-term sustain themselves, exist and grow further independently from this or any other specific organization.”) is just gone. I liked it. But i think in the combination of “universal use” and “must be open source” we have covered 90% of point three already.
Ok,
Any objections?