Patrick McNamara wrote:
James Richard Tyrer wrote:
Patrick McNamara wrote:
However, one question: OpenGraphics, or OpenHardware? I
anticipate that once OGD starts selling, people are going to
(a) want to do non-graphics things with it and (b) want to
start similar projects (e.g. RAID controllers, novel networking
devices, etc, etc). We're going to have some considerable
expertise associated with the foundation, and we don't want to
scare interested people away from us by giving the impression
that we're about graphics and graphics only...
I'd opt for open hardware. Initially this would only be the Open
Graphics Project. Addition of new projects would require
certain conditions be met, though I haven't given a whole lot of
though to what those conditions would be, along with vote from
the board of directors to add the project. I would think
requiring something other than a simple majority, perhaps an
absolute two thirds majority, would be required to add a new
project.
Anyway, if there's any help I can give from this side of the
Atlantic, please let me know.
I'm still pondering over everything that needs to be done. I'm
sure, just like with everything else, there will be plenty of
work to go around. Thanks for the offer.
Would the FSF object if we called it the Free Hardware Foundation?
Or, would they like to help? The aim of the foundation would be
educational -- to promote full documentation of all computer
hardware.
As Timothy pointed out in his response, "free" has multiple
connotations that cause all sorts of confusion, even with software
which really can be free (as in beer) since. That's the main reason
I have been trying to stick with "open" rather than free.
I suppose that this is a good point. There is a problem explaining what
'open' means also. But, English is an ambiguous language and I have no
cure for that.
Remember, once you start a 501(c)(3) foundation that you are a
public charity and can't discriminate against anyone -- it would
have to help anyone wanting to have open hardware although you
could work on the basis of need and provide help to mostly small
startups.
That's not entirely true. For a charity, yes, you cannot
discriminate. Not all 501(c)(3) corporations/foundations are
charities.
The IRS might argue that point, but I know what you mean.
You of course cannot discriminate on religion, sex, race, ethnicity,
etc.
Yes, that is very important.
However, we are perfectly ok discriminating based on technical
merit or business plan merit.
Those are valid business decisions which all foundations that make
grants have to make all the time.
What I had in mind is that the W3C can't tell Microsoft that they can't
be a member. If we think that we might have similar problems, the only
thing that can be done is to have a strong membership agreement.
Members that violate the agreement can be kicked out.
You can't put profits from selling hardware into the foundation
but, IIUC, you could say that a percentage of the price of each
item sold would be donated to the foundation. And, you can sell
stuff with logos to raise money for the foundation as long as you
keep good books.
We could put all the profits we wanted to into the foundation. We
simply cannot take them out.
Should have said more since that is what I had in mind. You can
contribute some of the profits, but then it is 501(c)(3) money that can
only be used for foundation purposes.
--
JRT
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
