I'm not a tax attorney, but I know that there are serious restrictions on how two companies (non profit or otherwise) owned by the same people or entities are a

I'm not a tax attorney, but I know that there are serious restrictions on how two companies (non profit or otherwise) owned by the same people or entities are allowed to use them to benefit each other. Those restrictions exist for obvious reasons: being able to easily shift around money can lead to all kinds of tax evasion and other corruption. And I'm also fairly certain that suddenly renegotiating a licensing agreement in which the obvious purpose is to secure more revenue for the Corporation at the expense of the Foundation would be considered self-dealing, and there would be severe penalties, the least of which being the loss of tax-exempt status for the Foundation. Being controlled by the same entity does not mean that they are allowed to shift assets and money around or spend their own resources resolving each others' financial issues, and doing something sneaky like trying to hide such transfers as part of a trademark licensing renegotiation would not pass a smell test. > Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits) How disingenuous and trollish to put this at the end of your post. In the reply to an argument explaining that the Foundation is a separate entity with its own charter acting independently, you simply ignore the argument and say the same thing over again instead of addressing it.