7 ms·

Many posts are comparing this development to the ACLU's gradual heel/face turn (depending on which camp you are cheering for), but here I am left wondering, as

by 4bpp 5y ago

Many posts are comparing this development to the ACLU's gradual heel/face turn (depending on which camp you are cheering for), but here I am left wondering, as someone with little knowledge about the workings and legal foundations of NGOs, why these sorts of developments even happen. Why do nonprofits not get "hardcoded" to advance a particular cause in a particular way, by way of a charter or otherwise? Is this just not legally possible, is it not done for some other reason, or is it done but all of the changes we are observing fall short of violating the relevant legal code (which just means that our predecessors failed to make it specific enough)? I imagine that, as a prospective donor, I would certainly much prefer if there were some form of legal assurance that the Dog-Grooming Union that I would be giving money to will continue advancing the cause of well-groomed dogs tomorrow, rather than deciding that it would instead rather fight for the cause of creating salons for cats, or even completely turn around and say that it will now fight against human intervention in the natural phenotypical fur-styles of dogs. (As a concrete example, this feeling of incomprehension always makes me wonder about "GPL vN or later" licenses. If the ACLU can start agitating against free speech, what would stop some future societal development from inspiring the FSF to release a GPL v4 that says "this source code is exclusive property of Microsoft to use as it sees fit"?)

evouga 5y ago
Perhaps if you're a donor to a nonprofit, you could sue its directors for breach of fiduciary duty of fidelity to purpose? Although I doubt this could successfully prevent slow drift in the mission of an entire organization (as we're seeing with the ACLU).
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Why do nonprofits not get "hardcoded" to advance a particular cause in a particular way, by way of a charter or otherwise? Because if they did, and the charter could not be amended, then a change in the opinion of people who support the mission on the optimal mechanism kills the organization and requires the costs of building a whole new organization. The same reason why the whole of the law of a nation isn't fixed for all time out the outset.
- true_religion 5y ago
  But that's okay. A non-profit is just a company. No one is born into it, it holds no legal power over anyone, it can't send troops to conquer foreign lands, and most notably can't stop anyone from leaving it or working against it. I don't see why a non-profit can't work just like a legacy trust---fulfil the mission left behind by its founder, and manage its monies to do that and only that. If a non-profit's mission is successful, it can disband. It doens't need to pivot with its current supporters to find new things to do. Additioanlly, it need top change to suit the whims of its supporters. The supporters can simply support someone---anyone else (non-profits are far more numerous and easy to start than a new country). The original non-profit will die on the vine.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > But that's okay. To you, maybe. It is manifestly not to most of the people actually involved or they would do it more often. It's not like the space of degrees of flexibility has not been well explored. > I don't see why a non-profit can't work just like a legacy trust---fulfil the mission left behind by its founder, and manage its monies to do that and only that. It can, but real people founding them don’t usually want that because its not a legacy trust; the people making it are alive, know that they have evolving views of the precise parameters of the mission and the optimal mechanisms for pursuing it, and don't want the burden of inflexibility. Feel free to start your own rigidly programmed NGOs if you want.
- mc32 5y ago
  That's not a problem. If they believe the original mission is not relevant, then, dissolve and form a new entity that espouses their new-found points of view. 'We do longer believe in our founding principles, therefore we will dissolve and form a new entity and will evangelize according to this new set of principles, if you agree, come and join us. Those who believe in our old principles are free to re-form around the cause'. Imagine a non-profit that believes in abolishing the death penalty. It has a change of heart at the top and decides it's for the death penalty. I think this deserves dissolution and forming a new non-profit or PAC, whatever.
busterarm 5y ago
> I imagine that, as a prospective donor, I would certainly much prefer if there were some form of legal assurance that the Dog-Grooming Union that I would be giving money to will continue advancing the cause of well-groomed dogs tomorrow, rather than deciding that it would instead rather fight for the cause of creating salons for cats, or even completely turn around and say that it will now fight against human intervention in the natural phenotypical fur-styles of dogs. How many pet-owning PETA supporters actually know that PETA believes that pet ownership is equivalent with slavery, wants to abolish it and that its shelters have the highest euthanization rates because they consider killing domesticated animals to be a mercy. Support your local SPCA.
- junon 5y ago
  Links please. Not really a fan of PETA but I've heard so much misinformation about them that I really don't think they're as bad as everyone makes them out to be.
  - ajay-b 5y ago
    The only thing I’ve learned from this discussion is that PETA is a disgusting organization, and it’s best that I have nothing to do with them.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    From their own website: We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as “surplus.” This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/at-petas-shelter-most-animals-are-put-down-peta-calls-them-mercy-killings/2015/03/12/e84e9af2-c8fa-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/at-petas-sh... https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-thousands-animals-1565532 https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-... It's interesting though -- all of this is easily searchable online. If you really read into their own literature and statements of people behind PETA, you'll find some real radical takes. People hear all this, but still choose to disbelieve and not do their own research. They don't hide anything. They're open about all of it.
gamblor956 5y ago
Why do nonprofits not get "hardcoded" to advance a particular cause in a particular way, by way of a charter or otherwise? They can hardcode their nonprofit mission into their corporate charter, and many smaller nonprofits do.
hrnz17 5y ago
> what would stop some future societal development from inspiring the FSF to release a GPL v4 that says "this source code is exclusive property of Microsoft to use as it sees fit"? Nothing, but the "or any later later version of the GPL" clauses have protection against this scenario. Section 14 of the GPLv3 contains the nice sentence "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.", which is essentially legalese for "if it differs in the spirit of the license, it is not considered a new version of the GPL and the upgrade clause does not apply".
- bitwize 5y ago
  Any one who signed the FSF's CLA to get their code into Emacs is still boned. This is particularly dangerous because in the anglosphere, open source licenses are by default bare licenses -- they do not have the force of contract, meaning they can be revoked at any time. An organization which released any code under the GPL or any open source license can revoke the right to use that code on a whim (yes, the GPL'd code itself, not future revisions of that code), meaning a hostile FSF can prevent use, distribution, or -- critically -- forking of Emacs. Projects such as Linux without a CLA requirement are better protected against this because of their patchwork ownership. A single contributor has less to gain, and more to lose, by revoking their license to their contributions. That's not to say it's perfect protection but it does help.
  - tspiteri 5y ago
    > in the anglosphere, open source licenses are by default bare licenses -- they do not have the force of contract, meaning they can be revoked at any time. Any example where this happened to back up this claim?
    - bitwize 5y ago
      Not yet. It's just how contract law works. In order for a contract to be binding, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration -- something of value given up in exchange for what's granted in the contract. When you download OSS from some place, you get the benefits of the rights granted by the license, but you have given nothing in return. Hence, there is no consideration, and no contract. Without force of contract, the OSS license is a bare license, and the licensor may revoke it at any time for any reason -- just as a homeowner may kick you off their property at any time for any reason, even if they allowed you on their property before.
jrootabega 5y ago
You would essentially need a Terminator robot to enforce it. Something deployed independently that could destroy you if you deviated from the specified mission, and could not be reasoned with or recalled. This might be possible someday, maybe even soon. Smart contracts, orbital lasers, etc. But then the org would just spend all their time arguing about how to define the mission and protocol and never get it done. But another reason is that organization would probably just stop being funded when it upheld its hard-coded mission in ways that were unpopular. If the mission is that you must advocate for providing speech/payment platforms for someone who is saying heinous things, people will just stop donating to you. The org has to survive to execute its mission, and it needs to adapt to survive. That will always result in drift, decay, and death. And the powers that be would not let such an organization gain enough ground that it could become independently wealthy.
hulitu 5y ago
> Why do nonprofits not get "hardcoded" to advance a particular cause in a particular way, by way of a charter or otherwise? Is this just not legally possible, is it not done for some other reason, or is it done but all of the changes we are observing fall short of violating the relevant legal code (which just means that our predecessors failed to make it specific enough)? Because as they grow they become interesting for people with an agenda: 3 letter agencies, lobbyists. See how Greenpeace has evolved for example.

by 4bpp 5y ago

evouga 5y ago

Perhaps if you're a donor to a nonprofit, you could sue its directors for breach of fiduciary duty of fidelity to purpose? Although I doubt this could successfully prevent slow drift in the mission of an entire organization (as we're seeing with the ACLU).

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Why do nonprofits not get "hardcoded" to advance a particular cause in a particular way, by way of a charter or otherwise? Because if they did, and the charter could not be amended, then a change in the opinion of people who support the mission on the optimal mechanism kills the organization and requires the costs of building a whole new organization. The same reason why the whole of the law of a nation isn't fixed for all time out the outset.

true_religion 5y ago
But that's okay. A non-profit is just a company. No one is born into it, it holds no legal power over anyone, it can't send troops to conquer foreign lands, and most notably can't stop anyone from leaving it or working against it. I don't see why a non-profit can't work just like a legacy trust---fulfil the mission left behind by its founder, and manage its monies to do that and only that. If a non-profit's mission is successful, it can disband. It doens't need to pivot with its current supporters to find new things to do. Additioanlly, it need top change to suit the whims of its supporters. The supporters can simply support someone---anyone else (non-profits are far more numerous and easy to start than a new country). The original non-profit will die on the vine.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > But that's okay. To you, maybe. It is manifestly not to most of the people actually involved or they would do it more often. It's not like the space of degrees of flexibility has not been well explored. > I don't see why a non-profit can't work just like a legacy trust---fulfil the mission left behind by its founder, and manage its monies to do that and only that. It can, but real people founding them don’t usually want that because its not a legacy trust; the people making it are alive, know that they have evolving views of the precise parameters of the mission and the optimal mechanisms for pursuing it, and don't want the burden of inflexibility. Feel free to start your own rigidly programmed NGOs if you want.
mc32 5y ago
That's not a problem. If they believe the original mission is not relevant, then, dissolve and form a new entity that espouses their new-found points of view. 'We do longer believe in our founding principles, therefore we will dissolve and form a new entity and will evangelize according to this new set of principles, if you agree, come and join us. Those who believe in our old principles are free to re-form around the cause'. Imagine a non-profit that believes in abolishing the death penalty. It has a change of heart at the top and decides it's for the death penalty. I think this deserves dissolution and forming a new non-profit or PAC, whatever.

busterarm 5y ago

> I imagine that, as a prospective donor, I would certainly much prefer if there were some form of legal assurance that the Dog-Grooming Union that I would be giving money to will continue advancing the cause of well-groomed dogs tomorrow, rather than deciding that it would instead rather fight for the cause of creating salons for cats, or even completely turn around and say that it will now fight against human intervention in the natural phenotypical fur-styles of dogs. How many pet-owning PETA supporters actually know that PETA believes that pet ownership is equivalent with slavery, wants to abolish it and that its shelters have the highest euthanization rates because they consider killing domesticated animals to be a mercy. Support your local SPCA.

junon 5y ago
Links please. Not really a fan of PETA but I've heard so much misinformation about them that I really don't think they're as bad as everyone makes them out to be.
- ajay-b 5y ago
  The only thing I’ve learned from this discussion is that PETA is a disgusting organization, and it’s best that I have nothing to do with them.
- busterarm 5y ago
  From their own website: We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as “surplus.” This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/at-petas-shelter-most-animals-are-put-down-peta-calls-them-mercy-killings/2015/03/12/e84e9af2-c8fa-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/at-petas-sh... https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-thousands-animals-1565532 https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-... It's interesting though -- all of this is easily searchable online. If you really read into their own literature and statements of people behind PETA, you'll find some real radical takes. People hear all this, but still choose to disbelieve and not do their own research. They don't hide anything. They're open about all of it.

gamblor956 5y ago

Why do nonprofits not get "hardcoded" to advance a particular cause in a particular way, by way of a charter or otherwise? They can hardcode their nonprofit mission into their corporate charter, and many smaller nonprofits do.

hrnz17 5y ago

> what would stop some future societal development from inspiring the FSF to release a GPL v4 that says "this source code is exclusive property of Microsoft to use as it sees fit"? Nothing, but the "or any later later version of the GPL" clauses have protection against this scenario. Section 14 of the GPLv3 contains the nice sentence "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.", which is essentially legalese for "if it differs in the spirit of the license, it is not considered a new version of the GPL and the upgrade clause does not apply".

bitwize 5y ago
Any one who signed the FSF's CLA to get their code into Emacs is still boned. This is particularly dangerous because in the anglosphere, open source licenses are by default bare licenses -- they do not have the force of contract, meaning they can be revoked at any time. An organization which released any code under the GPL or any open source license can revoke the right to use that code on a whim (yes, the GPL'd code itself, not future revisions of that code), meaning a hostile FSF can prevent use, distribution, or -- critically -- forking of Emacs. Projects such as Linux without a CLA requirement are better protected against this because of their patchwork ownership. A single contributor has less to gain, and more to lose, by revoking their license to their contributions. That's not to say it's perfect protection but it does help.
- tspiteri 5y ago
  > in the anglosphere, open source licenses are by default bare licenses -- they do not have the force of contract, meaning they can be revoked at any time. Any example where this happened to back up this claim?
  - bitwize 5y ago
    Not yet. It's just how contract law works. In order for a contract to be binding, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration -- something of value given up in exchange for what's granted in the contract. When you download OSS from some place, you get the benefits of the rights granted by the license, but you have given nothing in return. Hence, there is no consideration, and no contract. Without force of contract, the OSS license is a bare license, and the licensor may revoke it at any time for any reason -- just as a homeowner may kick you off their property at any time for any reason, even if they allowed you on their property before.

jrootabega 5y ago

You would essentially need a Terminator robot to enforce it. Something deployed independently that could destroy you if you deviated from the specified mission, and could not be reasoned with or recalled. This might be possible someday, maybe even soon. Smart contracts, orbital lasers, etc. But then the org would just spend all their time arguing about how to define the mission and protocol and never get it done. But another reason is that organization would probably just stop being funded when it upheld its hard-coded mission in ways that were unpopular. If the mission is that you must advocate for providing speech/payment platforms for someone who is saying heinous things, people will just stop donating to you. The org has to survive to execute its mission, and it needs to adapt to survive. That will always result in drift, decay, and death. And the powers that be would not let such an organization gain enough ground that it could become independently wealthy.

hulitu 5y ago

> Why do nonprofits not get "hardcoded" to advance a particular cause in a particular way, by way of a charter or otherwise? Is this just not legally possible, is it not done for some other reason, or is it done but all of the changes we are observing fall short of violating the relevant legal code (which just means that our predecessors failed to make it specific enough)? Because as they grow they become interesting for people with an agenda: 3 letter agencies, lobbyists. See how Greenpeace has evolved for example.