zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter:

“resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"

I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.

>>troupe+Kd1
yeah, the lawyers will have the whole case on those two words: "where applicable"

>>cpill+4i1
Rather „not organized for the private gain of any person“

>>ant6n+vl1
Corporations aren’t people, my friend

>>notnau+Dq1
The persons are the core team of OpenAI maybe?

>>djbusb+mr1
Usually the person who paid for everything is entitled to some of the profit. Telling him it is a donation to a non profit seems legally hilarious?

>>theend+p72
Musk didn't pay for everything. He took his money and left, upset that OpenAI wouldn't let him run it. It was precisely because Musk stopped funding them that OpenAI were forced to seek outside investors and change their corporate structure to be able to offer them a return on the investment.

>>HarHar+Qm2
The text says he donated more millions after he left.

Is it normal in startup world to dranatically(?) change the formula for investment and donation rounds?

It sounds like, i donate to a soup kitchen for the homeless and a high end restaurant chain comes out the other end. Complete with investors.

Curious what the court might find. It is certainly interesting drama (again)

>>theend+vz2
Obviously this was originally presented as a non-profit, so not a normal startup by any means, but certainly it is normal for startups to "pivot" direction early on and end up doing something completely different than what they initially said. I'm not sure at what point this might upset investors, but I believe the idea is that they are usually investing in the team as much as the idea.