The IRS open sourced much of its incredibly popular Direct File software as the future of the free tax filing program is at risk of being killed by Intuit’s lobbyists and Donald Trump’s megabill. Meanwhile, several top developers who worked on the software have left the government and joined a project to explore the “future of tax filing” in the private sector.

Direct File is a piece of software created by developers at the US Digital Service and 18F, the former of which became DOGE and is now unrecognizable, and the latter of which was killed by DOGE. Direct File has been called a “free, easy, and trustworthy” piece of software that made tax filing “more efficient.” About 300,000 people used it last year as part of a limited pilot program, and those who did gave it incredibly positive reviews, according to reporting by Federal News Network.

But because it is free and because it is an example of government working, Direct File and the IRS’s Free File program more broadly have been the subject of years of lobbying efforts by financial technology giants like Intuit, which makes TurboTax. DOGE sought to kill Direct File, and currently, there is language in Trump’s massive budget reconciliation bill that would kill Direct File. Experts say that “ending [the] Direct File program is a gift to the tax-prep industry that will cost taxpayers time and money.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

What's the license?

Edit: Ugh, it's licensed CC0 public domain. Assholes.

https://github.com/IRS-Public/direct-file/blob/main/LICENSE

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Seems correct to me. It was paid for by the US public, using US public funds, it belongs in the public domain.

I also wish they had GPL'd it, but I'm not sure this would be appropriate here.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A copyleft would absolutely be appropriate here.

It was paid for with public funds.

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

CC0 = Everyone owns it, no one can claim rights to it

Copyleft = No one owns it, the code owns itself and claims rights to itself

Since everyone paid for it, everyone owns it.

If no one paid for it, or if a single owning entity is feeling benevolent, then copyleft is appropriate.

I assume it would be difficult to get the consent of every US taxpayer to license this as copyleft, I believe CC0 (or proprietary, unfortunately) is the rightful default when in this situation. It's debatable whether any government code should be proprietary, save for deployment secrets.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

CC0 = gift to corporations at the expense of taxpayers

Copyleft = everyone owns it and all derivatives, even from corporations

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trust me, I get the feeling.

I'm only arguing from a legal standpoint, where it's more appropriate to have CC0.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 points 2 days ago

Nah, that law was written before copyleft licenses were widespread. There are exemptions for contractors and some groups like USPS.

I'm saying that law is wrong, and it needs to be changed.

[–] atmorous@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not familiar how is that bad?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It means that any company can take that code, modify it (as would be required every year per IRS tax changes), and resell it without being required to publish the source code changes.

What many European countries are doing is requiring the government to publish code under a copyleft license. That would allow companies to also benefit from this code to make their own tools (which they could also sell), and it would require them to publish the source code of their improvements.

Basically copyleft legally ensures collaboration. Public domain does not.

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why's that bad?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It means that any company can take that code, modify it (as would be required every year per IRS tax changes), and resell it without being required to publish the source code changes.

Basically copyleft legally ensures collaboration. Public domain does not.

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago

Ah thanks thats not as bad is I was fearing but not great