6 ms·

> If a company is privately held, then its owners can use it to pursue a mission other than maximizing profit Well, that depends on your shareholders. Mozilla

> If a company is privately held, then its owners can use it to pursue a mission other than maximizing profit Well, that depends on your shareholders. Mozilla Corp can do this, because its only shareholder is Mozilla Foundation. However, the minute you take institutional investment, hand out shares to employees, take on debt financing, etc., you are now bound by a fiduciary duty to do right by those other parties. You still can focus on other things, but only if they don't conflict with turning a profit. In my opinion, "turning a profit" in fact serves the greater needs of the npm/node community, because servers cost money. npm isn't just a program, it's a service, and services require infrastructure. So, it's not a conflict at all. It is a very foolish business person who sees an exponential curve of user engagement, and decides that the best way to make money is to screw all those people.

yapcguy 13y ago
> However, the minute you take institutional investment, hand out shares to employees, take on debt financing, etc., you are now bound by a fiduciary duty to do right by those other parties. You still can focus on other things, but only if they don't conflict with turning a profit. This is not true. The shareholder value myth has been debunked by law professors. "...shareholder primacy theory was first advanced by economists, not lawyers. This may explain why the idea that corporations should be managed to maximize shareholder value is based on factually mistaken claims about the law." http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=6482 http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=6482 "Contrary to myth, the sale of Ben & Jerry’s to corporate giant Unilever wasn’t legally required." http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_truth_about_ben_and_jerrys http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_truth_about_ben_...
- IsaacSchlueter 13y ago
  Yeah, whatever. Academic. IANAL, but I'm guessing you aren't either, so let's leave that to the lawyers. I'm sorry I brought it up. Bottom line, I've done a lot of work on npm over the last 4 years, and I've got some ideas about how to best take care of it in the future. Those ideas require money, and it's a lot easier to get money if you have a plan to turn it into MORE money. (This IS still a site about startups, right? ;) If things keep expanding and growing like they have, then it's going to require more money. So, we've gotta earn our keep to be sustainable, and the way to do that is to provide stuff people will pay for. Also, I like to make money. It's fun, and it keeps you grounded in reality, if you run it like a responsible business. So that's another nice plus of going this route. I still have full flexibility to carve things up however I want later on, and like I said, we're keeping every option on the table.
  - beaumartinez 13y ago
    > This IS still a site about startups, right? Yes, but this thread is still about a language. > I like to make money. Of course. And the main concern with npm, Inc is whether making money will at some point conflict with wanting to make npm better, no-strings-attached.
    - IsaacSchlueter 13y ago
      npm's "no strings attached" low-ceremony approach is the reason why it's taken off like it has. The purpose of all this is to keep that going. If "make money" ever appears to be in conflict with the thing that puts us in a position to make money, then we're thinking about it wrong. For example, imagine if Twitter were not from the get-go a for-profit company. If they got really popular, and then said, "Hey, guys, we can't keep the lights on without figuring how a monetization strategy, so we're gonna take some VC and do that." It wouldn't be wise to assume that "make money" was going to mean "charge to read or post tweets". Forget love or greed or good and evil, that wouldn't be a smart way to make money. What is currently free will remain free, precisely because the free-ness of it is what makes npm interesting.
skue 13y ago
You could also consider creating a B Corp,[0] which balances its duty to shareholders against a duty to also promote the common good. And there are examples VC-backed B Corps, such as Disconnect.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_corporation [1] https://disconnect.me/#about https://disconnect.me/#about
- IsaacSchlueter 13y ago
  We've looked into making benefit corp or dual-purpose corp for npm, and it's still on the table. The tricky thing is that, while there ARE some VCs that back them, most of them are pretty interested in bigger plays than "sharing javascript programs with other javascript programmers". Disconnect is a pretty revolutionary idea, that will change society in some dramatic ways if it catches on. Most VCs that invest in benefit corps are looking for bigger plays than what we're doing. This is a pretty straightforward technology service that already has loads of adoption and upward-trending engagement graphs. It was just a lot easier to go the more traditional C Corp route first.

yapcguy 13y ago

> However, the minute you take institutional investment, hand out shares to employees, take on debt financing, etc., you are now bound by a fiduciary duty to do right by those other parties. You still can focus on other things, but only if they don't conflict with turning a profit. This is not true. The shareholder value myth has been debunked by law professors. "...shareholder primacy theory was first advanced by economists, not lawyers. This may explain why the idea that corporations should be managed to maximize shareholder value is based on factually mistaken claims about the law." http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=6482 http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=6482 "Contrary to myth, the sale of Ben & Jerry’s to corporate giant Unilever wasn’t legally required." http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_truth_about_ben_and_jerrys http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_truth_about_ben_...

IsaacSchlueter 13y ago
Yeah, whatever. Academic. IANAL, but I'm guessing you aren't either, so let's leave that to the lawyers. I'm sorry I brought it up. Bottom line, I've done a lot of work on npm over the last 4 years, and I've got some ideas about how to best take care of it in the future. Those ideas require money, and it's a lot easier to get money if you have a plan to turn it into MORE money. (This IS still a site about startups, right? ;) If things keep expanding and growing like they have, then it's going to require more money. So, we've gotta earn our keep to be sustainable, and the way to do that is to provide stuff people will pay for. Also, I like to make money. It's fun, and it keeps you grounded in reality, if you run it like a responsible business. So that's another nice plus of going this route. I still have full flexibility to carve things up however I want later on, and like I said, we're keeping every option on the table.
- beaumartinez 13y ago
  > This IS still a site about startups, right? Yes, but this thread is still about a language. > I like to make money. Of course. And the main concern with npm, Inc is whether making money will at some point conflict with wanting to make npm better, no-strings-attached.
  - IsaacSchlueter 13y ago
    npm's "no strings attached" low-ceremony approach is the reason why it's taken off like it has. The purpose of all this is to keep that going. If "make money" ever appears to be in conflict with the thing that puts us in a position to make money, then we're thinking about it wrong. For example, imagine if Twitter were not from the get-go a for-profit company. If they got really popular, and then said, "Hey, guys, we can't keep the lights on without figuring how a monetization strategy, so we're gonna take some VC and do that." It wouldn't be wise to assume that "make money" was going to mean "charge to read or post tweets". Forget love or greed or good and evil, that wouldn't be a smart way to make money. What is currently free will remain free, precisely because the free-ness of it is what makes npm interesting.

skue 13y ago

You could also consider creating a B Corp,[0] which balances its duty to shareholders against a duty to also promote the common good. And there are examples VC-backed B Corps, such as Disconnect.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_corporation [1] https://disconnect.me/#about https://disconnect.me/#about

IsaacSchlueter 13y ago
We've looked into making benefit corp or dual-purpose corp for npm, and it's still on the table. The tricky thing is that, while there ARE some VCs that back them, most of them are pretty interested in bigger plays than "sharing javascript programs with other javascript programmers". Disconnect is a pretty revolutionary idea, that will change society in some dramatic ways if it catches on. Most VCs that invest in benefit corps are looking for bigger plays than what we're doing. This is a pretty straightforward technology service that already has loads of adoption and upward-trending engagement graphs. It was just a lot easier to go the more traditional C Corp route first.