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.
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.