zlacker

A non-profit with a for-profit subsidiary is actually pretty common and it is probably one of the more "normal" things OpenAI has done.

https://www.marcumllp.com/insights/creating-a-for-profit-sub...

My personal opinion is that not creating a for-profit wing would have made a even bigger mess.

(But then I also think this suit is very obviously without merit and the complaint is written in a way that it sounds like lawyers sucking up to Musk to take his money - but people seem to be taking it very seriously!)

>>Jamiso+(OP)
I don't think the problem is with having a for-profit wing. The problem is that only the for-profit wing got to use the technology developed by the non-profit, when the non-profit was explicitly tasked with releasing the technology to the public, allowing competition.

>>stubis+Gs
I would say you are using the words "explicitly tasked" when the articles of incorporation use the words "seek to" and "when applicable". (And also the "allowing competition" part I don't think is actually in the mix, is there a citation for that?)

""The Founding Agreement was also memorialized, among other places, in OpenAI, Inc.’s December 8, 2015 Certificate of Incorporation, which affirmed that its “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.”""

That said, I was only commenting on the idea that creating a for-profit wing was adding to the unusual corporate structure of OpenAI and saying that it really didn't.

>>Jamiso+bu
What would make it applicable?

>>Jamiso+(OP)
> A non-profit with a for-profit subsidiary is actually pretty common

Example: Raspberry Pi

>>pauldd+gQ
That's the thing, the governance of the org decides what to do based on these guidelines, so the management & board decides when it is applicable.