4 ms·

There are no strings attached. I was really surprised when they contacted me on IRC, but they already sponsor other orgs, like the Gnome Foundation or Freenode,

There are no strings attached. I was really surprised when they contacted me on IRC, but they already sponsor other orgs, like the Gnome Foundation or Freenode, as you can see on their frontpage: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/ .

kuschku 9y ago
.
- calcifer 9y ago
  You have many comments in this thread complaining about... something, but I'm yet to see proof of a single bad thing that PIA has done to projects they sponsor.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    First, I consider centralization of power bad. I consider it generally a good thing if there's independent projects, and not single people get control over many major projects. Now, let's consider this another person helpfully mentioned > Freenode is registered as a "private company limited by guarantee without share capital" performing "activities of other membership organisations not elsewhere classified", with Christel and Andrew Lee (PIA's founder) as officers, and Andrew Lee having the majority of voting rights. Any profits are not to be distributed under their articles of association, making it a not-for-profit company. Meaning that Andrew Lee alone has control over Freenode. And, looking by it, also Snoonet. And also indirect control over many open source projects. A single person having influence over major parts of the open source world and infrastructure. I'm not sure if you consider this bad, but I do consider it bad if a single person starts buying up everything I use daily. And I will try to prevent this centralization of power. (For the same reason I dislike Google, which also concentrates far too much power in the hands of just two people).
    - zamalek 9y ago
      And rather have those systems disappear as each runs out of money?
      - kuschku 9y ago
        But that's the problematic part. You're now completely dependent on a single person for funding, and if they demand you add something to your software (or they'll end funding), you're fucked. Do tou really want to give this power to a single person?
- la_oveja 9y ago
  dude wtf, you have a magic ball that can see the future actions of others? geez, your comment made me sick
wjnc 9y ago
You should Google and read up on 'Wwft' (Dutch law). You wouldn't want to go from VAT troubles to terrorism financing or money laundering troubles with that same tax office. No intention of stirring up troubles in this thread and congrats on having your problem solved!, but large gifts of unknown / foreign origin can get a lot of attention. Especially if it goes across many countries. So it seems wise to have the sponsor checked out. Your bank and accountant will probably ask the same question at a certain point in time.
- syshum 9y ago
  When ever I think the US Legal System has to be the most insane system ever, I simply look up EU Laws and cases and then realize how much better the US system is even with all its screwed up flaws... The idea that Accepting an donation from PIA could be even remotely considered money laundering or terrorism financing is beyond insane to me
  - wjnc 9y ago
    I would agree that the laws surrounding money laundering and terrorism financing in the EU are pretty heavy handed. An example: a financial firm is to check the UBO (ultimate benificiary owner, i.e. the real person involved) at the other end of the deal, for all counterparties. You also should check for PEPs (politically exposed persons), which can be all kinds of things (think family members of notorious regimes). The thing is, for terrorism governments supply watchlists, for PEPs they don't. So most institutions use PEP-lists that they procure elsewhere, but don't really manage. So that's where funny things happen. These are laws where compliance is pretty hard to do guarantee. In this case you getting a €20k financing from a UK-firm, with a (his responses are now downmodded, but that part was probably true) UBO that is pretty mindfull of his privacy and the whereabouts of his money you can't follow. You use that money to finance a particular Russian contractor, via a Dutch foundation. I don't think being compliant should be awefully hard, although it would entail some work. Note that the compliancy should fall on the bank, accountant and perhaps notary involved. I just added the reply to give Boudewijn a heads-up to be mindful. All of this doesn't stop Dutch banks from financing coffeeshops with their roots massively in the locally illegal growing of cannabis. So go figure about the impact of these laws...

kuschku 9y ago

calcifer 9y ago
You have many comments in this thread complaining about... something, but I'm yet to see proof of a single bad thing that PIA has done to projects they sponsor.
- kuschku 9y ago
  First, I consider centralization of power bad. I consider it generally a good thing if there's independent projects, and not single people get control over many major projects. Now, let's consider this another person helpfully mentioned > Freenode is registered as a "private company limited by guarantee without share capital" performing "activities of other membership organisations not elsewhere classified", with Christel and Andrew Lee (PIA's founder) as officers, and Andrew Lee having the majority of voting rights. Any profits are not to be distributed under their articles of association, making it a not-for-profit company. Meaning that Andrew Lee alone has control over Freenode. And, looking by it, also Snoonet. And also indirect control over many open source projects. A single person having influence over major parts of the open source world and infrastructure. I'm not sure if you consider this bad, but I do consider it bad if a single person starts buying up everything I use daily. And I will try to prevent this centralization of power. (For the same reason I dislike Google, which also concentrates far too much power in the hands of just two people).
  - zamalek 9y ago
    And rather have those systems disappear as each runs out of money?
    - kuschku 9y ago
      But that's the problematic part. You're now completely dependent on a single person for funding, and if they demand you add something to your software (or they'll end funding), you're fucked. Do tou really want to give this power to a single person?
la_oveja 9y ago
dude wtf, you have a magic ball that can see the future actions of others? geez, your comment made me sick

wjnc 9y ago

You should Google and read up on 'Wwft' (Dutch law). You wouldn't want to go from VAT troubles to terrorism financing or money laundering troubles with that same tax office. No intention of stirring up troubles in this thread and congrats on having your problem solved!, but large gifts of unknown / foreign origin can get a lot of attention. Especially if it goes across many countries. So it seems wise to have the sponsor checked out. Your bank and accountant will probably ask the same question at a certain point in time.

syshum 9y ago
When ever I think the US Legal System has to be the most insane system ever, I simply look up EU Laws and cases and then realize how much better the US system is even with all its screwed up flaws... The idea that Accepting an donation from PIA could be even remotely considered money laundering or terrorism financing is beyond insane to me
- wjnc 9y ago
  I would agree that the laws surrounding money laundering and terrorism financing in the EU are pretty heavy handed. An example: a financial firm is to check the UBO (ultimate benificiary owner, i.e. the real person involved) at the other end of the deal, for all counterparties. You also should check for PEPs (politically exposed persons), which can be all kinds of things (think family members of notorious regimes). The thing is, for terrorism governments supply watchlists, for PEPs they don't. So most institutions use PEP-lists that they procure elsewhere, but don't really manage. So that's where funny things happen. These are laws where compliance is pretty hard to do guarantee. In this case you getting a €20k financing from a UK-firm, with a (his responses are now downmodded, but that part was probably true) UBO that is pretty mindfull of his privacy and the whereabouts of his money you can't follow. You use that money to finance a particular Russian contractor, via a Dutch foundation. I don't think being compliant should be awefully hard, although it would entail some work. Note that the compliancy should fall on the bank, accountant and perhaps notary involved. I just added the reply to give Boudewijn a heads-up to be mindful. All of this doesn't stop Dutch banks from financing coffeeshops with their roots massively in the locally illegal growing of cannabis. So go figure about the impact of these laws...