Forgejo is changing its license to a Copyleft license. This blog post will try to bring clarity about the impact to you, explain the motivation behind this change and answer some questions you might have.

...

Developers who choose to publish their work under a copyleft license are excluded from participating in software that is published under a permissive license. That is at the opposite of the core values of the Forgejo project and in June 2023 it was decided to also accept copylefted contributions. A year later, in August 2024, the first pull request to take advantage of this opportunity was proposed and merged.

...

Forgejo versions starting from v9.0 are now released under the GPL v3+ and earlier Forgejo versions, including v8.0 and v7.0 patch releases remain under the MIT license.

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

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm saying you can't pay with paper money, you must pay with real money for everything.

I'm not against considering loans against unrealized assets as realization (with stepped up basis) since the person taking out said loan can use it to pay said tax.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

People do this exact thing all the time. Taking on debts to keep cashflow or avoid taxes is normal.

If you are just sitting on unproductive assets instead of realising their value in some way, you are doing the wrong thing.

You should be able to gain revenue from the asset or it wouldn't have appreciating value.

All your comments don't make sense, it's like you just want to take from the economy without giving anything back.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I forgot the most obvious example:

If you bought a house for $200,000 and when you retire it's worth $1,000,000 the government shouldn't demand you pay a percentage of your "gain" for the rest of your life or until you are forced to sell it.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why not

Taxes bad?

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

You are saying you want to tax retired people with no income just because they have a place to live in. Should we kick them out for nonpayment of said taxes too? Because that's what would happen. It happens in states with property taxes, but now you want to take it national.

This is the problem with leftists. This message would be an extremely bad electoral platform.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Zero cashflow retirees are not a thing.

ALL states have property tax.

You don't know what you are talking about if you don't understand how taxes are offset and credited. You are just whining about not wanting to participate in society.

Taxes pay for things, go get educated.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They have social security and some of them have savings. My mom is planning to retire in West Virginia and she's already planning on selling her current residence to build a house there. She chose a low property tax state on purpose.

At this point she would only receive social security and start to go through her savings to live. You want to start charging her federal taxes the moment her property is worth $1 more than what she bought it for, even though she's on fixed income.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yup. And then credit it against standard deduction rates so that 🤡s owning multiple unoccupied homes pay real amounts while your grandmother pays pennies

Like a normal tax system, you doink

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

She owns one home now and one plot of land. She doesn't own multiple unoccupied homes. She's also my mother, not my grandmother

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Are you a bot or something?

Please answer in ASCII semaphore or French if you don't know semaphore.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

I don't know French, but here:

O O O

Close enough?

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Let's say I give $100,000 to a friend that starts a start-up. You claim after some years that investment is worth $1,000,000 and want me to pay $150,000 tax

I take out a loan for $150,000 because the startup didn't make any profit. The startup goes bust. I now have a $100,000 loss and I paid $150,000 in taxes. Thankfully I can write $3000 off on my taxes every year until I die!

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If the startup made no profit it would never be worth 1000000. You would only have a capital gain if value was realizable.

If you never made a dime from your initial 100000 investment you would sell off the asset at that point instead of paying taxes.

If you were too dumb to sell parts of your assets, and instead chose to be cash negative or fail to pay your taxes, you kind of deserve to lose everything because you were too stubborn to receive advice from anybody.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Amazon had its first profitable year in 2003. It was worth 21 billion dollars.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/revenues_annual

For reference

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Did I say zero revenue? I said didn't make a profit. Lots of companies made money, but couldn't make more money than they spent. You can easily have an investment that is valued high that you can't cash out

Let's say you bought some stock now, at the end of the year it's worth $1,000,000 and you get charged $150,000 in April. Big problem, the brokerages stopped allowing you to sell the stock and it crashed down, so now your GameStop stock is worth $100,000

How do you pay?

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't pay... This is a solved problem, wealth gain/loss would work the same way as capital gain/loss

You can use a net capital loss to reduce your taxable capital gain in any of the 3 preceding years or in any future year.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/capital-losses-deductions/you-use-a-capital-loss.html

It feels like people that don't like this don't actually know how to whole system is supposed to work.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Canada?!

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes, but how much cashflow did it have, and how much in dividends did the individual stakeholders receive.

It never didn't pay it's taxes afaik

Edit: I'm fact checking myself, Amazon's strategy is reinvesting all profits to support further growth. They were never in a position like the other poster is describing.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

There were companies that didn't survive the dot com crash despite being worth billions. Amazon is a company you would recognize, even though a better company is pets.com

If you bought their stock you would be very rich for a very short while until it went bankrupt