No subject
Fri Aug 22 02:35:08 EDT 2014
easy to understand that that organization is regulated to serve the public
interest; in return for the constraints, to encourage the donations the
donor gets a tax break. The tax returns the organization must file
annually can/are occasionally audited to ensure that the money meets those
constraints. And some potential donors may *only* make grants to 501c3's.
Both kinds of non-profit organizations serve purposes, and sometimes you
need both kinds available (for example, Mozilla is a pretty unique
combination of both). The Linux Foundation, TOG, and the X Consortium
are/were all 501c6's, there to serve the interests of the members (who
are/were corporations).
There are two "umbrella" 501c3's for open source/free software that have
been established to reduce the overhead to projects and handle the
non-trivial hassles associated with retaining 501c3 status, which are SPI
and the Software Freedom Conservatory. Personally, I'd be comfortable with
either.
But continuing the hassle (which has increased in recent years, nothing
like US politics) and overhead of that legal independence would be a
mistake.
In short, SPI has a long track record. Go for it. I'm glad to see it
happen.
- Jim
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
> Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> writes:
>
> > TOG was a purely commercial group without any open source foundations.
> SPI
> > grew out of Debian, who are many things but not commercial.
>
> In this case it's important to understand the legal distinction under US
> tax law between TOG, the X Consortium, the X.org foundation and SPI.
>
> The X.Org Foundation and SPI are both registered under the US tax code
> as non-profit foundations under section 501(c)3. Donations to either are
> eligible for tax benefits, which (I believe) is fairly unique to the US.
> That legal benefit comes with strong requirements on the underlying
> organization to document how they benefit the public at large, and how
> any donated funds will be spent in the furtherance of their mission.
>
> This means that both the X.org Foundation and SPI *cannot* violate their
> public mission statements without losing their preferential tax
> status. Losing this status means losing much of their legitimacy in the
> eyes of potential US donors.
>
> I found the SPI mission statement that they filed with the US government
> here:
>
>
> http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/11-3390208/software-public-interest.aspx#mission
>
> Neither TOG nor the X Consortium ran under these rules, and so they were
> not nearly as constrained in how they operated.
>
> It's entirely understandable why long-term members of our community
> might approach any change in governance structure with caution, and I am
> thankful that you are reviewing this proposal with our history in
> mind.
>
> The goals of the board memberships of both SPI and the X.org Foundation
> for this agreement are to provide additional resources to manage the
> business aspects of running the X.org foundation without in any way
> changing the practices, policies or structure of the political and
> technical aspects of the organization. In effect, we should see no
> change in what X.org does, only in how X.org activities are paid for.
>
> It is completely appropriate for all X.org members to review the
> proposed documents and ensure that the foundation will continue to
> support and promote free graphics software.
>
> --
> -keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> members at foundation.x.org: X.Org Foundation Members
> Archives: http://foundation.x.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/members
> Info: http://foundation.x.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members
>
--047d7bf0e95ec334b6050ca9328f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small">Jus=
t to expand on Keith's mail, under US tax law, there is an important di=
stinction between 501c3 status and 501c6 status, and that distinction stron=
gly influences contributions.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"fo=
nt-size:small"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:sm=
all">This looks like a decent explanation:</div><div class=3D"gmail_default=
" style><a href=3D"http://www.nonprofitlawcenter.com/resDetails.php?item_re=
f=3D247">http://www.nonprofitlawcenter.com/resDetails.php?item_ref=3D247</a=
><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_default" style>From a donor's point of view, if an organization is a 5=
01c3 (charity) it easy to understand that that organization is regulated to=
serve the public interest; in return for the constraints, to encourage the=
donations the donor gets a tax break.=C2=A0 The tax returns the organizati=
on must file annually can/are occasionally audited to ensure that the money=
meets those constraints.=C2=A0 And some potential donors may *only* make g=
rants to 501c3's.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style><br></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_default" style>Both kinds of non-profit organizations serv=
e purposes, and sometimes you need both kinds available (for example, Mozil=
la is a pretty unique combination of both).=C2=A0 The Linux Foundation, TOG=
, and the X Consortium are/were all 501c6's, there to serve the interes=
ts of the members (who are/were corporations).</div><div class=3D"gmail_def=
ault" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style>There are two &quo=
t;umbrella" 501c3's for open source/free software that have been e=
stablished to reduce the overhead to projects and handle the non-trivial ha=
ssles associated with retaining 501c3 status, which are SPI and the Softwar=
e Freedom Conservatory. Personally, I'd be comfortable with either.</di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_default" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default"=
style>But continuing the hassle (which has increased in recent years, noth=
ing like US politics) and overhead of that legal independence would be a mi=
stake.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_default" style>In short, SPI has a long track record.=C2=A0 Go for it.=C2=
=A0 I'm glad to see it happen.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style>=
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style>- Jim</div><div class=3D"gmail=
_default" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Packard <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:keithp at keithp.com" target=3D"_blank">keithp at keithp.com=
</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">D=
aniel Stone <<a href=3D"mailto:daniel at fooishbar.org">daniel at fooishbar.or=
g</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> TOG was a purely commercial group without any open source foundations.=
SPI<br>
> grew out of Debian, who are many things but not commercial.<br>
<br>
</span>In this case it's important to understand the legal distinction =
under US<br>
tax law between TOG, the X Consortium, the X.org foundation and SPI.<br>
<br>
The X.Org Foundation and SPI are both registered under the US tax code<br>
as non-profit foundations under section 501(c)3. Donations to either are<br=
>
eligible for tax benefits, which (I believe) is fairly unique to the US.<br=
>
That legal benefit comes with strong requirements on the underlying<br>
organization to document how they benefit the public at large, and how<br>
any donated funds will be spent in the furtherance of their mission.<br>
<br>
This means that both the X.org Foundation and SPI *cannot* violate their<br=
>
public mission statements without losing their preferential tax<br>
status. Losing this status means losing much of their legitimacy in the<br>
eyes of potential US donors.<br>
<br>
I found the SPI mission statement that they filed with the US government<br=
>
here:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/11-3390208/software-publi=
c-interest.aspx#mission" target=3D"_blank">http://www.guidestar.org/organiz=
ations/11-3390208/software-public-interest.aspx#mission</a><br>
<br>
Neither TOG nor the X Consortium ran under these rules, and so they were<br=
>
not nearly as constrained in how they operated.<br>
<br>
It's entirely understandable why long-term members of our community<br>
might approach any change in governance structure with caution, and I am<br=
>
thankful that you are reviewing this proposal with our history in<br>
mind.<br>
<br>
The goals of the board memberships of both SPI and the X.org Foundation<br>
for this agreement are to provide additional resources to manage the<br>
business aspects of running the X.org foundation without in any way<br>
changing the practices, policies or structure of the political and<br>
technical aspects of the organization. In effect, we should see no<br>
change in what X.org does, only in how X.org activities are paid for.<br>
<br>
It is completely appropriate for all X.org members to review the<br>
proposed documents and ensure that the foundation will continue to<br>
support and promote free graphics software.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
-keith<br>
</font></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:members at foundation.x.org">members at foundation.x.org</a>: X=
.Org Foundation Members<br>
Archives: <a href=3D"http://foundation.x.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/member=
s" target=3D"_blank">http://foundation.x.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/member=
s</a><br>
Info: <a href=3D"http://foundation.x.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members" =
target=3D"_blank">http://foundation.x.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members<=
/a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--047d7bf0e95ec334b6050ca9328f--
More information about the members
mailing list