The whole concept of a parent company owning the foundation is fishy.
The non-profit foundation is the parent company. It has some taxable subsidiaries that, among other things, handle certain revenue-generating business deals.
A non-profit that owns a for-profit company is very well not realy non-profit. Just because all their profit is made by one of their subsidaries? And yet mozilla stand itself on some kind of moral highground.
A non-profit that owns a for-profit company is very well not realy non-profit.
All of the profit of the subsidiary goes to the nonprofit parent, in furtherance of its nonprofit mission. The subsidiary doesn’t exist to make anybody rich but just to earn (taxable) income for the parent.
The non-profit foundation is the parent company. It has some taxable subsidiaries that, among other things, handle certain revenue-generating business deals.
You say that like it is any better.
A non-profit that owns a for-profit company is very well not realy non-profit. Just because all their profit is made by one of their subsidaries? And yet mozilla stand itself on some kind of moral highground.
All of the profit of the subsidiary goes to the nonprofit parent, in furtherance of its nonprofit mission. The subsidiary doesn’t exist to make anybody rich but just to earn (taxable) income for the parent.