Re: Mozilla For Profit?
Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.free-software-business |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Anthony Long wrote: > Was wondering if some of the Mozilla board members on this list and others > could weigh in on why the change and how the new corporation intends to make > money and also thoughts on similar strategies for other consumer-facing open > source projects like OpenOffice.org. As the press release and articles hopefully make clear (aside from horrid headlines like "Mozilla Turns For-Profit", ugh) the change was made because we felt the Foundation was looking at doing (and being asked to do) too many things that were inappropriate for a 501c3 to do. Such as, take the revenue that can come from the default list of search links in the upper-right-hand search box and the the default Firefox home page. We could have wrapped ourselves in a cloak of righteousness and ignored all that, as Apache does, but Apache gets away with that because it doesn't have to have a paid staff. Mozilla, since its inception and likely indefinitely, requires a full-time paid staff to focus on release engineering, QA, core development, and even things like marketing/PR and standards involvement. This is not to dismiss the value of the volunteer community at all, but we're a long ways away from being able to depend entirely upon volunteer staff, and even a debate as to whether we should. We also shouldn't have to depend upon the largess of large companies to pay full-timer salaries - resulting in people who could disappear at any time a CEO decides that investment isn't producing a return. At the same time, we want to see a commercial ecosystem develop around Mozilla. After looking at a lot of options, and consulting with a *lot* of others, we felt this taxable-sub idea was the best balance between all these issues. So this changes the Foundation into something that is more Apache-like than before - lighter weight, focusing on policy and IP issues and the community, and more appropriate for the purpose of a 501c3 non-profit. In the process it creates a commercial entity charged not with producing a return for investors, but in serving the purpose of the non-profit. It's no doubt an experiment. :) Brian