4 ms·

This is why non-profit organizations such as the Apache Foundation and the Linux Foundation are extremely important. They act as a conduit for funds and resourc

by ffk 12y ago

This is why non-profit organizations such as the Apache Foundation and the Linux Foundation are extremely important. They act as a conduit for funds and resources to these important projects. Organizations like Team Cymru also play an important role in discovering and mitigating exploits in both open and closed source software. Perhaps there should be an open source crypto foundation or a crypto umbrella at the Apache Foundation to help foster and secure these types of very important projects.

humanrebar 12y ago
It's my understanding that you cannot get tax-exempt non-profit status purely for developing and distributing software, regardless of license. It's my understanding that software-oriented tax-exempt organizations, 501(c)(3)s, like the Apache Foundation categorize themselves as educational foundations in order to get tax-exempt status. It's hinted in the article that it's a pain to do FOSS despite altruistic intentions. I'm surprise that this shortcoming of the tax code wasn't underscored more. If we are serious about getting more funding for open source, we should be lobbying to get FOSS (for some definition) categorized as providing scientific benefit or else add a new category of non-profits that provide free software (for some definition of free). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Software_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Software_Foundation
- ffk 12y ago
  This is definitely true. The Yorba Foundation is a recent relevant example where the tax code failed. I think the risk that the IRS is trying to mitigate is for companies to establish a development only organization and single-licensing it to a shell to sell. We will need to find a nice dividing line that pushes FOSS causes forward while simultaneously preventing the creation of loop holes exploitable by for-profit entities.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > I think the risk that the IRS is trying to mitigate is for companies to establish a development only organization and single-licensing it to a shell to sell. That seems easy to fix. Require that the software be available to the general public under the same terms. Which is probably how it already is, if I recall correctly a non-profit can't exist solely to benefit a private party.

by ffk 12y ago

humanrebar 12y ago

It's my understanding that you cannot get tax-exempt non-profit status purely for developing and distributing software, regardless of license. It's my understanding that software-oriented tax-exempt organizations, 501(c)(3)s, like the Apache Foundation categorize themselves as educational foundations in order to get tax-exempt status. It's hinted in the article that it's a pain to do FOSS despite altruistic intentions. I'm surprise that this shortcoming of the tax code wasn't underscored more. If we are serious about getting more funding for open source, we should be lobbying to get FOSS (for some definition) categorized as providing scientific benefit or else add a new category of non-profits that provide free software (for some definition of free). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Software_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Software_Foundation

ffk 12y ago
This is definitely true. The Yorba Foundation is a recent relevant example where the tax code failed. I think the risk that the IRS is trying to mitigate is for companies to establish a development only organization and single-licensing it to a shell to sell. We will need to find a nice dividing line that pushes FOSS causes forward while simultaneously preventing the creation of loop holes exploitable by for-profit entities.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > I think the risk that the IRS is trying to mitigate is for companies to establish a development only organization and single-licensing it to a shell to sell. That seems easy to fix. Require that the software be available to the general public under the same terms. Which is probably how it already is, if I recall correctly a non-profit can't exist solely to benefit a private party.