> We set Ghost up as non-profit foundation so that it would always be true to its users, rather than shareholders or investors. Our legal constitution ensures that the company can never be bought or sold, and one hundred percent of our revenue is reinvested into the product and the community.
>I'm curious what Ghosts' bylaws are, how is it actually organized? I presume it's not a 501c(3) since it's engaged in commercial space and doesn't take charitable donations.
I always smile when I hear "non-profit". Last year a US non-profit that dealt with military research was looking to buy from us and asked for a discount because they were a non-profit.
I looked on their website and their annual revenues were in the ballpark of x1000 that of ours. Maybe it's a European view, but I find the idea of a defence non-profit bizarre and the idea we should discount for them on this basis even more so.
By being a non-profit, the main beneficiary is their customers (the DoD I'm guessing) because the pricing doesn't need the usual margin of profit. I'd just be reducing the cost for them, since costs are ultimately just passed on.
My point is, this a boundary case of stretching the ethics of "non-profit" way too far. Yes, non-profit is great for open source, but I would be concerned about using it as a vehicle when large companies are the ones benefiting (which isn't the case with Ghost).
Some countries can have blurry lines between companies and non-profits; in this case, Matrix.org is a Community Interest Company in the UK (https://matrix.org/foundation), so I assume that'd apply to it as well.
reply