Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla funding $245,000 for Black artists to show how #AI can reinforce/disrupt

foundation.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–34 of 34 posts

Re: Mozilla funding $245,000 for Black artists to show how #AI can reinforce/disrupt

#31

Post by esarbe »

p49k wrote: post #30
vladvasiliu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The have absolutely nothing to do with each other, because the Moz Foundation has probably no say whatsoever in the Corporation's decision. Especially since the Corporation is not only wholly owned by the Foundation but they also have a common chair. The first line of "About the Mozilla Corporation" [0]: >The Mozilla Corporation was established in August 2005 as a wholly owned taxable subsidiary that serves th…

I’m not sure why you’re being snarky and uncivil. Yes they are related (never said they weren’t), but the Foundation cannot transfer $245k to the Corporation to help fund salaries of workers. The Corp exists to be run as a business and the Foundation exists primarily for advocacy.

Why not? I mean, seriously. Why cannot the Foundation transfer $245k to the Corporation to help fund salaries of workers?

Apparently they can award $245k to an artist, so why cannot they award $245k to a developer?

I'm a big fan of Mozilla. Really big fanboi. I've been using a Gecko-based browser since the painful days of the Mozilla Application Suite. When Mozilla released the standalone Firefox, I was sold and it has been my primary browser ever since.

But the shenanigans that Mozilla (be it the Corporation or the Foundation) has been up to is really starting to doubt the long-term ability of Mozilla (be it the Corporation or the Foundation) to deliver what to me is their primary product; a software libre browser that is competitive in terms of feature set, usability and speed (and nowadays; respects my privacy).

I grant you; the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation are two different legal entities. But for me that doesn't really matter; I want them to deliver the bloody best browser there is, that's why I gave them (the Mozilla Foundation, not the Mozilla Corporation, my bad) my money.

If Mozilla (the Foundation) really wants to do advocacy, let them do advocacy for a secure, private, decentralized Internet. That's what their (Mozilla the Corporation) primary product is all about. Trying to have the fingers in all the jars is just bad optics and confuses the heck out of people that want them to focus on a good browser and maybe the surrounding technology. Like for example Common Voice[0] or Servo[1], two projects that are after the layoffs by Mozilla (the Corporation) seriously in danger of failing.

[0] https://commonvoice.mozilla.org/en [1] https://servo.org/

Re: Mozilla funding $245,000 for Black artists to show how #AI can reinforce/disrupt

#32

Post by vladvasiliu »

p49k wrote: post #30
vladvasiliu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The have absolutely nothing to do with each other, because the Moz Foundation has probably no say whatsoever in the Corporation's decision. Especially since the Corporation is not only wholly owned by the Foundation but they also have a common chair. The first line of "About the Mozilla Corporation" [0]: >The Mozilla Corporation was established in August 2005 as a wholly owned taxable subsidiary that serves th…

I’m not sure why you’re being snarky and uncivil. Yes they are related (never said they weren’t), but the Foundation cannot transfer $245k to the Corporation to help fund salaries of workers. The Corp exists to be run as a business and the Foundation exists primarily for advocacy.

Well, I don't think the Foundation would need to transfer 245k to the Corporation. From what I understand, the Google search deal was done with the Corporation. So the cash transfer is rather Corp -> Found. Instead, it would be enough for the Foundation to give the Corporation a better deal on their various trademarks.

This is published in their financial statement for 2018 [0]. I'm not an accountant nor am I familiar with US Tax law, but from what I understand they received $6M in donations (contributions line) and spent $33M on "programs" (other than software development, which gets its own line). So the difference must have come from somewhere.

Apparently the various trademarks are owned by the Foundation. The Corp has to pay royalties to use them. It's not clear how much, but I don't see why the Foundation wouldn't be allowed to set its own rate and / or give discounts. Internal cash flows are omitted from the consolidated report, though.

What I gather from this is that basically the Foundation is getting most of its money from the Corporation. The Corp. being mainly concerned with Firefox, it could be argued that the Foundation gets money thanks to Firefox.

I can see how people who want to support the browser may take an issue with the Foundation's other, non browser-related activities. Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits).

[0] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201...

Re: Mozilla funding $245,000 for Black artists to show how #AI can reinforce/disrupt

#34

Post by p49k »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #32
p49k wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why you’re being snarky and uncivil. Yes they are related (never said they weren’t), but the Foundation cannot transfer $245k to the Corporation to help fund salaries of workers. The Corp exists to be run as a business and the Foundation exists primarily for advocacy.

Well, I don't think the Foundation would need to transfer 245k to the Corporation. From what I understand, the Google search deal was done with the Corporation. So the cash transfer is rather Corp -> Found. Instead, it would be enough for the Foundation to give the Corporation a better deal on their various trademarks. This is published in their financial statement for 2018 [0]. I'm not an accountant nor am I familia…

I'm not a tax attorney, but I know that there are serious restrictions on how two companies (non profit or otherwise) owned by the same people or entities are allowed to use them to benefit each other. Those restrictions exist for obvious reasons: being able to easily shift around money can lead to all kinds of tax evasion and other corruption.

And I'm also fairly certain that suddenly renegotiating a licensing agreement in which the obvious purpose is to secure more revenue for the Corporation at the expense of the Foundation would be considered self-dealing, and there would be severe penalties, the least of which being the loss of tax-exempt status for the Foundation.

Being controlled by the same entity does not mean that they are allowed to shift assets and money around or spend their own resources resolving each others' financial issues, and doing something sneaky like trying to hide such transfers as part of a trademark licensing renegotiation would not pass a smell test.

> Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits)

How disingenuous and trollish to put this at the end of your post. In the reply to an argument explaining that the Foundation is a separate entity with its own charter acting independently, you simply ignore the argument and say the same thing over again instead of addressing it.

Post reply on HN