"To continue building, [OpenAI] would have to take money from private investors — which meant setting up a for-profit entity underneath the nonprofit, similar to the way the Mozilla Foundation owns the corporation that oversees revenue operations for the Firefox browser, or how the nonprofit Signal Foundation owns the LLC that operates the messaging app."
Why are there at least 3 examples where Vultural Capital funded startups are disguised as not-for-profits? Are there more? What kinds of influences does this structure have on the culture of these institutions, the way they develop technology, and the nature of the software artifacts they produce?
I can think of a couple of observable answers to these questions.
One, Ubuntu is another example of the same 'corporation nested inside a not-for-profit' structure.
Two, these entities have a tendency to drift away from caring about the software freedoms of people using digital tech. For example, they trade on the positive associations of "open source", like the expectation it protects privacy. But their software often DataFarms the people using it.
Also, they no longer release all their code. Even the code they do publish under free licenses is often structured in ways that seem designed to make it hard to fork usefully, or deploy independently.
Three, these entities also tend to drift away from being run bottom-up by the engineers, and towards being run from the top down, by career bureacrats. When engineers do manage to make it into CEO positions, some scandal conveniently turns up to provide an excuse to remove them. Like when Mozilla Foundation co-founder Brendan Eich and JavaScript creator became CEO of the Mozilla Corporation.
(for the record: unlike Eich, I'm all for same sex marriage having the same legal status)
Circling back to OpenAI, part of the story about the firing of Sam Altman involves allegations of abuse. Web searches turn up dozens of versions of the story in online tabloids, but AFAICT reputable news media won't touch the story with a 10 foot pole. Which suggests that if there is any substance to the story, they haven't found any evidence that would protect them from libel action if they published it.
Which in turns suggests, once again, a hit job. But to what end?
Maybe, as with Eich, Altman is being knobbled. Eg by people who don't like his vision for the future of OpenAI, or just want him out of the way so they can push their own. But I don't think so.
Why not? The offer by BorgSoft to assimilate the key staff of OpenAI, Altman included, into their own MOLE division. Then Altman negotiating a return to OpenAI.
Whether Altman returns or not, the not-for-profit board of OpenAI are toast. Convenient.
@worik
> Unlike Open AI I do not think any body is getting a dividend or a return on their investment at Mozilla or Signal
Of course they are, though maybe not in cash.
In Mozilla's case the Foundation was reduced to an ethics-washing layer for Goggle buying default status in their built-in search. Which from memory around about when they were at their height of use. Which they leveraged into browser dominance through Chromium, and mobile dominance with Android.
@worik
The Signal Foundation not being open about what their funders get out of it means it's pertinacity probably something equally sketchy. Which is one reason why I don't use it.
A centralised "private" chat app that wants your phone number, and doesn't want you connecting to their server with software they didn't compile in-house, and whose funders' motivations are unclear Yeah, nah.
@worik
> It has no income stream but donations, does it?
Yes, but we're not talking about millions of 5-10 dollar donations, Bernie style, we're talking about a few people putting in millions of dollars. Again, capitalists don't tend to make such donations out of the goodness of their black and smoking hearts.
@worik
> They got a $50m endowment (from the profits of selling g What's App) when they started
Again, why? If I told you property industry magnates gave millions in donations to the NatACTs out of the goodness of their hearts, I doubt you'd believe me. Neither should you.
The broad strokes, yes. I know ZuckerBorg's origin story too. And Gates. And Jobs. How is it relevant to the discussion of what millions of dollars in funding gets for the donors?
> How is it relevant to the discussion of what millions of dollars in funding gets for the donors?
Facts
I do not think you have any.
The "broad strokes" are vastly different four the three (four counting Google) firms
What I see, forgive me for being frank, is you lumping three very different things together. Then refusing to consider there may be more than what you know
@worik
> What I see, forgive me for being frank, is you lumping three very different things together. Then refusing to consider there may be more than what you know
Possible. Also possible that you haven't kept up with all the dodgy stuff Mozilla's been up to since the for-profit was created, many of which I've written about. Or the many suspicious things about Signal and especially its rock star founder;
And another thing (stupid word limits, grrrr.....)
I have lived in this culture for thirty years, and your "lumping" makes no sense from what I know
For example: What is your problem with Mozilla's ethics?
A fact you missed: the founding of Signal cost one of its founders $850m, left on the table as unvested options at Facebook. Did you know about that? How does that fit your
@worik
> What is your problem with Mozilla's ethics?
Let's start with the fact that the upper echelons of its hierarchy are now shot through with people like Mitchell Baker, who don't have any. This results in all manner of unprincipled decisions.
Like including Adobe's proprietary DRM module in Firefox. That's 3 shocking ethical fails for the price of 1;
Neither do I. Because I use OS distros and mobile app stores that only supply 100% Free Code software. But the fact is most people do. Written by Adobe, of Flash plugin spyware fame. See the linked blog post.
A problem solved by switching to pretty much any fediverse app other than Mastodon. FireFish is pretty good (fork of Misskey). You can test it at firefish.nz
@worik
> the founding of Signal cost one of its founders $850m, left on the table as unvested options at Facebook... How does that fit your [analysis]
My suspicion is that FarceBook is using Signal as the unofficial R&D department for WhatSapp and FB MessEngineer. What got me thinking along these lines was when both companies announced WeChat-style payment integrations at pretty much the same time. But it could explain all the other dodgy stuff about Signal, especially all the lock-in.
@worik I can't prove it (yet), but if I'm correct, then I'm guessing Acton and Marlinspike are making plenty of FB filthy lucre. In the meantime, like DeVault, I will continue refusing to use Signal and discouraging anyone else from using it either.
@worik
> The deal Google has done with Moazilla (who do have other eincome streams too) is part of what might loose them their anti trust case
I'm talking about the laundering of Mozilla's dubious ethics, not Goggle's non-existent ones.
If Netscape had still been around to take Goggle's money directly, in exchange for helping them take effective control of both the web and mobile platforms, they would have been crucified. But the Mozilla Foundation doing it gave it a veneer of respectability.
Add comment