zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.

>>silico+z11
They didn't "turn it into" a for-profit though, they created a separate for-profit arm. This one is unusually successful but that's not an unusual thing for even "regular" charities to do in order to engage in some activities that they wouldn't normally be able to.

>>emoden+P21
They basically did, though. The nonprofit does nothing except further the interests of the for-profit company, and all employees get shares of of the for-profit company.

It's not unusual for nonprofits to have spinoffs, but it is unusual for the nonprofit to be so consumed by its for-profit spinoffs.

>>pclmul+i41
> The nonprofit does nothing except further the interests of the for-profit company, and all employees get shares of of the for-profit company

OpenAI has always argued that the for-profit is furthering the aims of the non-profit.

Also employees can't get shares of the non-profit so of course they would from the for-profit arm.

>>threes+Ma1
That argument will be tested in court. It certainly looks like things are the other way around as of now.

Most non-profit employees receive their compensation in the form of a salary. If you need to pay "market rate" competing with organizations that offer equity, you pay a bigger salary. When non-profits spin for-profits off (eg research spinoffs), they do it with a pretty strict wall between the non-profit and the for-profit. That is not the case for OpenAI.