3 ms·
I’m struggling to understand why the IRS nonprofit type is material here. Your previous post doesn’t really explain it either: a 501(c)(3) can impose trademark
by woodruffw 4y ago
I’m struggling to understand why the IRS nonprofit type is material here. Your previous post doesn’t really explain it either: a 501(c)(3) can impose trademark restrictions in the exact same way.
- marcosdumay 4y agoI don't think anybody can impose trademark restrictions the way the Rust Foundation was planing to... But anyway, the details of how a non-profit is created have a lot of impact on the incentives for their managers.
- woodruffw 4y agoNot anybody. The claim was that there’s no difference between individual nonprofit types in terms of trademarking abilities: the Rust trademark policy could just as easily exist under a (c)(3). (c)(3)s serve the public interest; (c)(6)s serve the interests of their members. But this doesn’t imply anything about a management class; it’s just a simpler and less fraught way to achieve tax-exempt status for a software community, especially one that was originally smaller.