Re: Legal entity types
On Aug 26, 2007, at 04:20, Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote: If you wanted to apply for a 3, fine, but USENIX's lawyer was saying it was harder to get, The (3) is harder to get, as you really have to prove that you really do have a charitable/educational/etc. mission, as compared with a (6) which doesn't have too much to prove. Also, the requirement for the (3) to be shepherded along by another (3) for a while isn't the path to immediate gratification. Note that I've never been to a USENIX event, but from what I've seen they basically organize several pay-for conferences and have some sort of 'membership benefits' for joining up. I think that's a pretty stark contrast to what we do, where just about everything is free and almost exclusively educational, and the membership benefits are limited to community spirit and friends (things the government wouldn't put any value on...). I'm sure the USENIX lawyer is right, I'm just not sure that we look much like USENIX, save the *nix. and seeing that we have a lot of strong-willed people in our group who might want to have the group actively lobby for things, I suggested going the route of the 6. Likely a majority of the group would have to actually agree on something for this to happen. Good luck with that! :) -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 02:14 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 04:20, Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote: If you wanted to apply for a 3, fine, but USENIX's lawyer was saying it was harder to get, The (3) is harder to get, as you really have to prove that you really do have a charitable/educational/etc. mission, as compared with a (6) which doesn't have too much to prove. Also, the requirement for the (3) to be shepherded along by another (3) for a while isn't the path to immediate gratification. Note that I've never been to a USENIX event, but from what I've seen they basically organize several pay-for conferences and have some sort of 'membership benefits' for joining up. I think that's a pretty stark contrast to what we do, where just about everything is free and almost exclusively educational, and the membership benefits are limited to community spirit and friends (things the government wouldn't put any value on...). I will admit that GNHLUG is where just about everything is free, but USENIX does a lot of good work in standards, promoting women in IT, and other things. Their conferences and workshops are where a lot of good CS work is done, not only for UNIX stuff, but other operating systems. md ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types
On 8/28/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will admit that GNHLUG is where just about everything is free, but USENIX does a lot of good work I don't think anyone was disparaging USENIX; just pointing out that many of their activities are different from ours, so their legal stance should be different from ours. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types
Ben Scott wrote: On 8/22/07, Bill Sconce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GNHLUG itself will presumably *not* write letters or try to persuade officials of anything. In the past, people have said that being a real organization would allow us to have people go before law- and policy-makers and say, We're here representing the Greater New Hampshire Linux Users Group. We think you should As such, it would help lend an air of legitimacy to advocacy efforts. A lot of people do let things like titles influence their perceptions, so this isn't just hot air. Now, whether or not we should do the above is open to debate. I'm not really sure where I stand on that question, myself. But I don't think we should assume that we definitely have no plans to influence political decisions, because in the past, at least some of us *did*. I am afraid if we speak to legislators as GNHLUG, we are a lobbying firm, with the liabilities and tax implications that implies. If I speak to my legislators as a citizen and voter and make it clear as part of establishing my credentials that I am very familiar with the Linux and FOSS communities, and that it is *me* speaking and not the organization, the two can be kept at arm's length. I think the political opinions within the organization range from the liberal to the conservative, radical to reactionary, and that having a representative of the group speak in an official capacity would introduce unnecessary divisions into the group. I encourage each and every member of the group to talk with their legislators and make *their* opinions known on important issues like copyright laws, DRM, the telephone-cable oligarchy and other issues they are concerned with. If a *member* of this organization wants to inform other members using the mailing list of the organization (while not establishing any 'official organization position'), I think that's the point of GNHLUG: establishing and encouraging communication amongst members. I think this discussion of legal entity types does bring us back to the great question. While many of us are employed in some aspect of the computer business, some of us do this as a hobby or an educational project or on a volunteer basis. Is the primary focus of the organization business? How do we justify the MythTV presentation, the most popular recent event? I think it could be argued that the main focus of the group is not business as much as it is focused on the community of Open Source and Free Software, and the fundamental differences such a philosophy brings to all aspects of computing. Is FOSS more of an economic model or a sociological one? Is GNHLUG a business or a social movement? I've tweaked on the Board meeting agenda to recognize that this discussion will probably close out our meeting. http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Organizational/BoardAgendaSummer2007 -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types
On 8/23/07, Ed lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are lots of issues that preclude a simple answer to this question, but here are my initial thoughts. Thank you, Ed, for that very informative post! First, the absolute easiest way to do this is to become an affiliate of Carol's organization. Bruce, can you ask Carol about this (I don't think she reads this list)? Also, it would a very good thing to have someone whose day job is dealing with taxes to give a second look at this. I've got a friend who does tax accounting on the side; I'll ask her what she knows about non-profit taxes. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types
Ed lawson wrote: On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:46:47 -0400 Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Technically under the state lobbying laws you need to be paid to do it before you are a lobbyist and the state law covers more than legilation. And there I go, practicing law without a license again. My bad. I think this discussion of legal entity types does bring us back to the great question. Which remains unresolved I take it. Well, I think each time the group takes it up, we help refine the question and its answers. The discussion is worthwhile. I am certainly gaining some education from it. It does seem like an unending debate society to some observers, I'm sure. So long as GNHLUG is just a very loose collections of folks who from time to time meet and from time to time do little projects, then maybe the great question is irrelevant actually. If GNHLUG is to do more than that, then the question needs to be resolved and it needs to move on. It may well be that some like the former, but just cannot stand the latter and they will need to accept things or move on. So it is a fundamental question and needs to be resolved if some types of activities are to be engaged in to any degree. I agree. That's why we continue to hold board meetings and keep it on the agenda. It will be resolved. I'm just willing to let the debate play out a bit more. I hope others share my patience. Personally, I need to ask for the check now as I have too many irons in the fire for the next few weeks to actively participate, but will listen and think about it all. This one ought to be on me. Thanks, Ed! -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types (was: Automated notification of topic changes)
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:05:54 -0400 Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah. Okay. I know someone had said that 501(c)(3) is/had become harder to qualify for The form is a little daunting and does require some planning to be done in addition. Well, I thought I addressed that in my notes. The short version is that business interests is fairly broadly defined, and that just promoting Linux seemed like it would qualify. At least, that's my interpretation of information on the IRS website. You may want to look at IRS Publication 557 which provides some detail on these issues. -- Ed Lawson Ham Callsign: K1VP PGP Key ID: 1591EAD3 PGP Key Fingerprint: 79A1 CDC3 EF3D 7F93 1D28 2D42 58E4 2287 1591 EAD3 ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types
See note at end... Ben Scott wrote: On 8/22/07, Ed lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I believe I said 501(c)(3). Ah. Okay. I know someone had said that 501(c)(3) is/had become harder to qualify for (i.e., limiting it to more traditional charities), and that 501(c)(6) might be more appropriate. I had thought it was you, but I could easily be wrong on that -- it was a few years ago at this point. Maybe it was maddog; maybe someone else. It is unclear to me how the members would constitute a collection of entities or persons with a common business interest the promotion of which is the main focus of GNHLUG. Well, I thought I addressed that in my notes. The short version is that business interests is fairly broadly defined, and that just promoting Linux seemed like it would qualify. At least, that's my interpretation of information on the IRS website. Unless there is some reason to believe there will be lots of money flowing through the coffers of GNHLUG, the whole exercise might be academic anyway. I rather suspect so, which is why I just went ahead and registered the EIN anyway, rather than bringing the question before the board first. While I haven't looked too far into the filing requirements at this point, the general idea appears to be that one gets the EIN first, and then files for tax-exemption. It appears an organization is allowed to never get that far, and to change things later. My impression was that the filing requirements for a 501(c)(3) are significantly stricter than for a 501(c)(6). The major payback being that donations to a 501(c)(3) can be tax deductible for the donator, which of course encourages donations. Both types allow the organization to be exempt from paying taxes on donation income. Perhaps a check with other similar organizations to see if the have applied for 501(c) recognition and if so what entity was chosen and why would be productive. Good idea anyone have any contacts with existing orgs they could pursue in that direction? I suppose I could just crack the phone book and start calling org's at random, but that seems crude. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/ Carole's company (Rivendell a.k.a. Learning Networks Foundation) is a 501(c)(3) and will act as a fiscal agent for similarly minded organizations. One of the issues we discussed (during a summit meeting here) about 501(c) status is that a 501(c)(6) allows us to lobby the government (and some of our activities re: open voting, DMCA, ... can be construed as lobbying regardless of what we think). A 501(c)(3) organization cannot do any lobbying. And you are right. The process for becoming a 501(c)(3) is a lot harder than to be a 501(c)(6). --Bruce ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:59:44 -0400 Ed lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Talking to state executive officials, to administrative people at all levels of state and local government, Selectmen, and School Boards about the advantages of Linux and FOSS is not lobbying. Presenting views on legislation to members of the legislature is lobbying. Right. I was once (OK, more than once) in Concord talking to elected officials about free software in voting. At one point I was asked if I had registered as a lobbyist. I made a trip over to the library, discovered that the RSA are quite specific, and that a citizen who is conveying a personal opinion to an official or a legislator is a citizen, not a lobbyist. Joining GNHLUG would not deprive anyone of citizens' privileges. GNHLUG itself will presumably *not* write letters or try to persuade officials of anything. GNHLUG won't, presumably, be hiring anyone to do that either. (Being paid to do that does make someone a lobbyist under the RSA.) -Bill ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
Re: Legal entity types
On 8/22/07, Bill Sconce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GNHLUG itself will presumably *not* write letters or try to persuade officials of anything. In the past, people have said that being a real organization would allow us to have people go before law- and policy-makers and say, We're here representing the Greater New Hampshire Linux Users Group. We think you should As such, it would help lend an air of legitimacy to advocacy efforts. A lot of people do let things like titles influence their perceptions, so this isn't just hot air. Now, whether or not we should do the above is open to debate. I'm not really sure where I stand on that question, myself. But I don't think we should assume that we definitely have no plans to influence political decisions, because in the past, at least some of us *did*. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
