zlacker

The biggest question I have is whether or not this new foundation will be a 501(c)(3) charity (or European analogue), versus a 501(c)(6) "business league".

The big distinction between the two of them is that donations to a 501(c)(3) charity are tax deductible and therefore may not be used to unduly advantage any commercial entity, while donations to a 501(c)(6) are not tax deductible and thus are unrestricted.

If it's a 501(c)(6), then the foundation will serve its biggest donors first and foremost. In theory, it may also serve the public good — but only to the extent that it is in the interest of those donors.

>>rectan+(OP)
A reasonable BOD can ameliorate any of the downsides with a (C)(6) quite easily, and while the perception may linger, it's entirely possible and likely that the Foundation will serve the Rust community regardless of whatever legal structure they choose. There are plenty of reasons to avoid (C)(3)s as well if you do want to fund the project with corporate dollars since those contributions are usually routed through an organization's philanthropic arm and usually can't be approved by business unit owners. (C)(3)s also have more stringent reporting requirements which can be a nice 'check' on any abuses but usually result in a lot more overhead.

>>mikeyo+m2
I've served on a non-profit board (the Apache Software Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3)), and I don't believe that counting on the composition of the board to maintain independence would be reliable. Board members come and go. If you care about independence, it should be baked into the corporate structure.

It is true that it is more difficult to get funds for a 501(c)(3) than a 501(c)(6). That forces the organization to operate lean and constrains possible initiatives (e.g. funding development), but also serves as a buffer against influence.

Paradoxically, a maximally independent organization may serve the interests of the long tail of potential corporate donors, because they don't have to worry that the biggest player in their space will capture it via pay-to-play.

(For those not up on the acronym, BOD stands for Board Of Directors in this context.)

>>rectan+05
Yeah, no arguments here, all fair points. I guess my point is that the Rust folks may have good reasons to pursue a (c)(6) and I don't think it says much about the future of the project if they go that route. With forethought, you can engineer the board and management structure to really be technology focused and provide in-built protection from 'corporatization' of the project.

>>rectan+(OP)
Please stop this 501(c)(6) vs 501(c)(3) nonsense, it's just a tax status, the Trump Foundation as a 501(c)(3) and was dissolved, the tax status doesn't imply much outside of it being a non profit...

The most important thing is ensuring that the community has representation on the board and other governance structures. There are some organizations like the Apache Software Foundation that do an OK job at this, there are others that don't even offer projects/maintainers seats on the board.

There are also organizations like the Linux Foundation and Eclipse Foundation which essentially act as "Foundation as a Service" and host multiple foundations in one with different governance structures.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/2020/05/building-a-succ...

>>canisz+gg
The example of the Trump Foundation's dissolution in fact illustrates that the difference between non-profits is meaningful. Many of the activities of the Trump Foundation would have been fine for a (c)(6). A major rationale for dissolution was inappropriate use of tax-deductible donations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation#Div...

>>rectan+lj
There are bad 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6)s, it's a tax status and implies nothing around its governance and outcomes.