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
Perhaps the regular charity version of this should also be challenged. This case looks somewhat egregious as the for profit arm was able to fire the board of the non-profit parent. Likewise, openAI is selling "PPU" units, it's entirely unclear if anybody knows what these actually are.

It's highly likely in my uneducated opinion that OpenAI will be told to adopt a standard corporate structure in the near term. They will likely have to pay out a number of stakeholders as part of a "make right" setup.

>>lumost+341
They didn't actually fire the board of the non-profit. They just said they'd all quit in protest because of an action of the board they all felt was egregious. The board could have stayed and been a non-profit that did nothing ever again. They decided it was better to step down.

>>viscan+V91
I believe they have said they decided it was better to step down because of being threatened with suits.

>>cma+Cg1
I believe it was Helen Toner who claimed an OpenAI lawyer said they were at risk of breaching fiduciary duty if the company fell apart because of the ouster.