4 ms·

As of 2014: $212 million on software development (presumably mostly salaries?), another ~$100 million on marketing/administration/etc. They appear to put away f

As of 2014: $212 million on software development (presumably mostly salaries?), another ~$100 million on marketing/administration/etc. They appear to put away from $10 to $70 million per year from 2010-2014, and had about $140 million in investment assets (again, 2014). https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/documents/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/documents/

jordigh 10y ago
But that's the foundation, not to be confused with Mozilla Corp. I've honestly never really understood how the two are actually related and how Mozilla can be both a nonprofit and a corporation. Talking to some Mozilla employees in IRC and in person, they never seem to think too hard about this either.
- Sylos 10y ago
  Yeah, I don't quite understand that either. What I know is that the for-profit is a subsidiary of the non-profit, and they only have it, because non-profits have some legal restrictions which they couldn't quite work with. I think, that's for example how much cash they are allowed to have on the side. And while I would like to understand it better for curiosity's sake, I'm personally okay with it being the way it is, on the basis that people who understand this stuff better than me don't seem to complain about it. Like, seriously, journalists just love to report how evil the innocent-thought Mozilla is, and often even drift off into pure nonsense to do so. So, if there really was anything to be said about their for-profit side, I figure, I would have heard of it by now.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  Corp was established to accept business contracts and pay taxes under business tax laws, rather than non-profit tax laws (the famous anecdote of IRS at one point in the early days tried to convince Mozilla don't worry about paying as non-profit). But as Mozilla continued to grow, they hired more people and formed a whole corporation where people are paid to work on Mozilla's core projects like FireFox and keeping Mozilla secured. The confusion often occurs at figuring out the outreach programs. Foundation does some outreach, but Mozilla Corps as a whole also do outreach program. For example, I think people who manage ambassadors are Mozilla Corp employees, but correct me if I am wrong. Furthermore, there are developers hired specifically to work on Foundation applications last. My info could be wrong by now...
- ihnorton 10y ago
  > The Foundation has a wholly-owned for-profit subsidiary, Mozilla Corporation (the Corporation). The Corporation serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent and the vast Mozilla community. ... > The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Foundation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Corporation (collectively “Mozilla”). All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. IIUC, receiving revenue would be more complicated if the transactions were undertaken directly with the not-for-profit foundation. Certainly many "non-profits" do receive transactional revenue, i.e. hospitals, but in that case they often have a number of subsidiaries -- for example one subsidiary actually employs the physicians, another signs funding contracts with the NSF/NIH and distributes grant revenue, a holding company owns the buildings, etc. Accounting is complicated (perhaps more accurately: "the tax code is complicated").

jordigh 10y ago

But that's the foundation, not to be confused with Mozilla Corp. I've honestly never really understood how the two are actually related and how Mozilla can be both a nonprofit and a corporation. Talking to some Mozilla employees in IRC and in person, they never seem to think too hard about this either.

Sylos 10y ago
Yeah, I don't quite understand that either. What I know is that the for-profit is a subsidiary of the non-profit, and they only have it, because non-profits have some legal restrictions which they couldn't quite work with. I think, that's for example how much cash they are allowed to have on the side. And while I would like to understand it better for curiosity's sake, I'm personally okay with it being the way it is, on the basis that people who understand this stuff better than me don't seem to complain about it. Like, seriously, journalists just love to report how evil the innocent-thought Mozilla is, and often even drift off into pure nonsense to do so. So, if there really was anything to be said about their for-profit side, I figure, I would have heard of it by now.
yeukhon 10y ago
Corp was established to accept business contracts and pay taxes under business tax laws, rather than non-profit tax laws (the famous anecdote of IRS at one point in the early days tried to convince Mozilla don't worry about paying as non-profit). But as Mozilla continued to grow, they hired more people and formed a whole corporation where people are paid to work on Mozilla's core projects like FireFox and keeping Mozilla secured. The confusion often occurs at figuring out the outreach programs. Foundation does some outreach, but Mozilla Corps as a whole also do outreach program. For example, I think people who manage ambassadors are Mozilla Corp employees, but correct me if I am wrong. Furthermore, there are developers hired specifically to work on Foundation applications last. My info could be wrong by now...
ihnorton 10y ago
> The Foundation has a wholly-owned for-profit subsidiary, Mozilla Corporation (the Corporation). The Corporation serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent and the vast Mozilla community. ... > The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Foundation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Corporation (collectively “Mozilla”). All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. IIUC, receiving revenue would be more complicated if the transactions were undertaken directly with the not-for-profit foundation. Certainly many "non-profits" do receive transactional revenue, i.e. hospitals, but in that case they often have a number of subsidiaries -- for example one subsidiary actually employs the physicians, another signs funding contracts with the NSF/NIH and distributes grant revenue, a holding company owns the buildings, etc. Accounting is complicated (perhaps more accurately: "the tax code is complicated").