5 ms·

Paying devs and designers to do what? Testing for what? To make a product more profitable so you can further grow the foundation? If it's not doing social outre

Paying devs and designers to do what? Testing for what? To make a product more profitable so you can further grow the foundation? If it's not doing social outreach or otherwise fulfilling the social mission of the nonprofit then I hope you understand it falls in that category and they can't legally do that, go to any of the member companies if you want that. When these nonprofits hire actual engineers and designers it's usually only on a contract basis to fix very specific problems that have to do with social issues around the project. It's otherwise hard for them to justify hiring staff to do that.

tedivm 4y ago
I wish you were wrong. I just looked this up out of curiousity, and Gnome themselves had their charity status denied by the IRS for this reason- > You have a substantial nonexempt purpose because you develop software published under open source compatible licenses that authorize use by any person for any purpose, including nonexempt purposes such as commercial, recreational, or personal purposes, including campaign intervention and lobbying. > Mere publishing under open source licenses for all to use does not show that the poor and underprivileged actually use the Tools. ? You do not limit your distribution and do not know who uses the Tools much less if they use them for artistic purposes. ? you do not know who uses the Tools much less what kind of content they create with the Tools. That said it should be clear here that this was explicitly for a charity, not just a non profit, but even still it's pretty messed up.
- throwaway82652 4y ago
  I don't think it's that messed up. If you really want to make something that qualifies as a charity (or a for-profit business) then you can just do that separately. The existence of this foundation doesn't get in the way, they're a home for the trademarks and a few other things but otherwise they don't have much bearing on what you would do. But there are some people at the foundation who would make it their goal to hire more developers, if the funding was there, it currently isn't.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    That reasoning is like denying charity status to a church thrift store because they don't do income verification at the door, to ensure that only poor customers are allowed to shop there.
    - throwaway82652 4y ago
      No, it's not even close to that. Analogies aren't that good of a tool to use here.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  Uhh, the Linux Foundation is a non-profit that sponsors people to work on Linux the kernel. How's that possible then?
  - throwaway82652 4y ago
    That's an extremely small percentage, most Linux developers aren't sponsored by the Linux Foundation. The majority of their expenses go towards events and training.
    - yencabulator 4y ago
      So you're saying it's a question of the threshold of "substantial". Okay, I can believe that.
      - throwaway82652 4y ago
        Not really, the question is how the organization is classified. Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) so they can sponsor some people but it's only for the purposes of furthering "common business interests" and not for profit.

tedivm 4y ago

I wish you were wrong. I just looked this up out of curiousity, and Gnome themselves had their charity status denied by the IRS for this reason- > You have a substantial nonexempt purpose because you develop software published under open source compatible licenses that authorize use by any person for any purpose, including nonexempt purposes such as commercial, recreational, or personal purposes, including campaign intervention and lobbying. > Mere publishing under open source licenses for all to use does not show that the poor and underprivileged actually use the Tools. ? You do not limit your distribution and do not know who uses the Tools much less if they use them for artistic purposes. ? you do not know who uses the Tools much less what kind of content they create with the Tools. That said it should be clear here that this was explicitly for a charity, not just a non profit, but even still it's pretty messed up.

throwaway82652 4y ago
I don't think it's that messed up. If you really want to make something that qualifies as a charity (or a for-profit business) then you can just do that separately. The existence of this foundation doesn't get in the way, they're a home for the trademarks and a few other things but otherwise they don't have much bearing on what you would do. But there are some people at the foundation who would make it their goal to hire more developers, if the funding was there, it currently isn't.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  That reasoning is like denying charity status to a church thrift store because they don't do income verification at the door, to ensure that only poor customers are allowed to shop there.
  - throwaway82652 4y ago
    No, it's not even close to that. Analogies aren't that good of a tool to use here.
yencabulator 4y ago
Uhh, the Linux Foundation is a non-profit that sponsors people to work on Linux the kernel. How's that possible then?
- throwaway82652 4y ago
  That's an extremely small percentage, most Linux developers aren't sponsored by the Linux Foundation. The majority of their expenses go towards events and training.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    So you're saying it's a question of the threshold of "substantial". Okay, I can believe that.
    - throwaway82652 4y ago
      Not really, the question is how the organization is classified. Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) so they can sponsor some people but it's only for the purposes of furthering "common business interests" and not for profit.