On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote: > Does/Must substantial support always mean money? Not in general, but in this case I was writing, in the context of money, about IRS rules that define exactly what substantial support means. If you want more info, google for 'public support test irs'. > What about those who have invested their time and efforts into testing, > using, et al, etc. ? They rock! I am not saying that people have to donate. It's ok to tell me "go away and die" (like someone actually did in response to my e-mail) I just need to understand what everyone thinks so I can represent your views in discussions with people such as lawyers who do not read fedora-list :) > If it does mean money -- does Red Hat have the mnost to gain from the OS > public at large efforts? Would Red Hat not be a substantial supporter? > I mean -- isn't the over all goal of the FC project to become a testing > ground for best of breed projects to make it into RHEL? Red Hat would be very likely to be a substantial supporter, and that is exactly the problem if the Fedora Foundation is a 501(c)(3). The IRS would not allow the FF to have 501(c)(3) status if all its donations were coming from one big contributor such as Red Hat. Anyways... -- Elliot Red Hat Summit Nashville (May 30 - June 2, 2006) http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/
