3 ms·

Not OP. The problem is compounded by the fact that all the released financial and audit reports seem to "consolidate" the flow of money between the foundation

by zo1 3y ago

Not OP. The problem is compounded by the fact that all the released financial and audit reports seem to "consolidate" the flow of money between the foundation (non-profit parent company) and the corporation (for-profit owned subsidiary). So it's just seen as income, and we have no idea how accounting-wise they get the money, and how it presumably "flows out" to the foundation. Who knows how much "licensing costs" the corporation pays the foundation as a way of extracting the money up. E.g.: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-2021-fs-final-1010.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202... "All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated."

dizhn 3y ago
It almost seems like they are conflating things on purpose. They mostly use the name Mozilla without specifying which it is. Actually I was trying to find sources now and reporters seem to be doing the exact same thing. We know they are paying large sums to the top executives. Is the corporation paying this or the foundation? You cannot donate to the corporation so maybe the donations alone (without google money) is enough for their expenses. It's more consufing because if I am not mistaken the top execs of the corp are also top execs of the foundation. Regardless, since one owns the other, they probably have legal ways to move money around. Excluding the people who are actually trying to build a browser, the whole organization is super suspect. As far as I know they never respond to criticism either.