--- Elliot Lee <sopwith@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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'. >From what I read, one contributor doesn't cut it with the I.R.S. My friends at Good Work, Inc. set up their non-profit keeping all of this first & foremost in their minds. So a coupla of bucks to assist Fedora is no biggie nor a deal maker/breaker for me. > > 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 :) Reasonable. > > 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. Again, Elliot explained that in the post. Power and Authority issues, regarding the powers-that-be. Following the rules is a very good thing to do, especially with the Feds. I know. I fought the law, and the law won. <cackles> Ric __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
