4 ms·

A tiny insignificant part which owns the commerical part.

• esskay 3y ago
  Not sure what your point is there. Owning the commercial arm is pretty irrelevent. Most businesses are owned by a holding company that does nothing more than file a return once a year.
  • benj111 3y ago
    So? I don't know the precise structure, but Wikipedia is 'owned' by the wikimedia foundation. It could be owned by Disney. So the question is, who is the better custodian? A not for profit entity or a for profit one? Raspberry pi is part owned by the raspberry pi foundation. The raspberry pi foundation shouldn't have a profit motive, so in that sense is a better custodian than some for profit 'holding company'. No you could question, given they were prioritising business customers whether the foundation A) made the right decision or B) whether they have enough away over the company. To me this all seems reminiscent of free software v open source. A lot of people expected free(hard)ware, where it's becoming apparent it's more open source.
    • graemep 3y ago
      Given your Wikipedia example I think my answer would be "neither" :) The problem with non-profits owning profit making businesses is that it makes governance a lot more complex, tends to create conflicts of interest etc.
      • benj111 3y ago
        Is neither an option. A thing has to be owned by some entity. That entity has a choice of being profit making or not. You may not be satisfied with either of those choices, but that's a separate issue. A non profit still needs funds. The need for funds is going to create conflicts. Ultimately it come down to, do you want the millions that raspberry pi is making, going to some venture capitalist. Or do you want it going to some non profit. If they do decide to milk the cash cow, at least that money is going somewhere hopefully better for society.