That’s an odd complaint. If they didn’t ask for donations, donations would be a lower % of their income. How many donations do you need before you can ask for donations?
It’s not a matter of how many donation do you need, it’s a matter of why are you asking for donations in the first place. When half the donations barely cover the salary of the head honcho through shifting restricted cash between organizations, you have to have some confidence to prominently display “We exist to advance the interests of people who use the internet — not profit for shareholders.” on your summary.
Mozilla used to be much smaller and did rely on some form of donations to continue development. That may not be the case today, but the option is still there for those who’d like to
If a corporations earns halve a billion. Does it really need donations?
The whole concept of a parent company owning the foundation is fishy. Its just as strange that firefox seems to be like by privacy people when the owners are as instranparent as mozilla.
The whole concept of a parent company owning the foundation is fishy.
The non-profit foundation is the parent company. It has some taxable subsidiaries that, among other things, handle certain revenue-generating business deals.
A non-profit that owns a for-profit company is very well not realy non-profit. Just because all their profit is made by one of their subsidaries? And yet mozilla stand itself on some kind of moral highground.
A non-profit that owns a for-profit company is very well not realy non-profit.
All of the profit of the subsidiary goes to the nonprofit parent, in furtherance of its nonprofit mission. The subsidiary doesn’t exist to make anybody rich but just to earn (taxable) income for the parent.
That’s an odd complaint. If they didn’t ask for donations, donations would be a lower % of their income. How many donations do you need before you can ask for donations?
It’s not a matter of how many donation do you need, it’s a matter of why are you asking for donations in the first place. When half the donations barely cover the salary of the head honcho through shifting restricted cash between organizations, you have to have some confidence to prominently display “We exist to advance the interests of people who use the internet — not profit for shareholders.” on your summary.
So dont donate?
Mozilla used to be much smaller and did rely on some form of donations to continue development. That may not be the case today, but the option is still there for those who’d like to
If a corporations earns halve a billion. Does it really need donations?
The whole concept of a parent company owning the foundation is fishy. Its just as strange that firefox seems to be like by privacy people when the owners are as instranparent as mozilla.
Firefox is open source. Check it out for yourself or find a fork that works better for you.
The non-profit foundation is the parent company. It has some taxable subsidiaries that, among other things, handle certain revenue-generating business deals.
You say that like it is any better.
A non-profit that owns a for-profit company is very well not realy non-profit. Just because all their profit is made by one of their subsidaries? And yet mozilla stand itself on some kind of moral highground.
All of the profit of the subsidiary goes to the nonprofit parent, in furtherance of its nonprofit mission. The subsidiary doesn’t exist to make anybody rich but just to earn (taxable) income for the parent.
Earning and profiting are two very different things.