Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's not reasonable. The whole thread is stupid.

Non-profit just means that the company cannot make / pay out profit. It can still pay its employees a lot of money. It can still own for-profit corporate entities, take their profit, and spend it on other (non-money-making) causes.



the context is "for-profit" ... if a company is for-profit and somebody is contributing for free then that is a very personal choice - but there are more obvious reasons for not doing so.


It's not for-profit. The whole organisation is non-profit. It's being funded by contributions, as well as profits from a subsidiary.

The fact that one of the subsidiaries is structured as a for-profit is a red herring. Just a legal structure. The whole organisation is non-profit.


The IRS would disagree with this.

Mozilla Foundation has a staff of 80 and "manages" about 1000 volunteers. It's unclear how much donations it gets as they published a consolidated report that includes the corporation. I expect that very little.

Mozilla Corporation has a staff of 750 and $400M revenue (I expect most from the Google search deal).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation


If a CEO can justify such a salary then it is very much for-profit ... your argument is just a play with words.


No, the problem is that people don't understand what non-profit means. It has nothing to do with the internal structure of the company, employee salary (CEO is also an employee) etc. It has to do with external structure, i.e. ownership and distribution of profits (which there cannot be any).

Mozilla CEO's salary isn't even that big, in the large scheme of things.

https://www.erieri.com/blog/post/top-10-highest-paid-ceos-at...

I agree, though, that non-profit shouldn't automatically be conflated with beneficial or working for the common good, as is common.


What is the acceptable salary for the CEO of a non-profit?


You do know that any donation to Mozilla goes to the for-profit side projects and not Firefox, the browser, right?

To me there seems there is something fundamentally wrong with the way Mozilla is set up.


If you donate to the Mozilla Foundation, then by law that donation can only be used toward the non-profit activities of the Foundation. It cannot go toward Mozilla Corporation activities.


I’m not arguing the law, I’m arguing that Firefox should be a beneficiary of those donations. There is currently no way for anyone to donate to Mozilla for Firefox development, even though that is the main product that people derive value from.

To me, it seems like Mozilla Corporation should not have existed, and everything should have been part of the non-profit foundation.


IIRC if you write what something's for on a check in the memo/for line, it legally has to be used for that purpose for nonprofits, but I can't find a source and I doubt something like that would be a high-priority thing to audit for the IRS.


Donations go to the Mozilla Foundation, which largely does advocacy. The CEO works for the Mozilla Corporation, which makes far more money than the donations.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: