On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 08:04 +1000, Paul Gear wrote: > Jeff Waugh wrote: > > So LA counts on that second paragraph, and ensuring that it is seen as > > 'charitable' by the other definitions in the guide. It is a difficult and > > troublesome issue. > > ... > > [1] http://www.ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content.asp?doc=/content/34267.htm&page=3&H3 > > With guidelines like that, it's no wonder it's a difficult and > troublesome issue. It reads like they've specifically designed their > guidelines to be obscure so that people /need/ to ask them for advice > first. :-( >
I especially like <sarcasm> Example: Non-charity An institute formed to educate people in the platform of a political party is not a charity. As, isn't Microsoft a pseudo political party these days. And like any good political party LA also has it's factions, Redhat, Debian, and countless others I have forgotten :-) </sarcasm> seriously though it's hard to pick just what type Maybe.... Example: Charity An animal shelter’s main purpose is looking after sick, stray and unwanted animals. Around budget time it sometimes lobbies politicians for funding. As long as the lobbying remains no more than incidental to the charitable purpose, the animal shelter will continue to be a charity. of generic charity LA would be. I feel pretty unwanted at times trying to convince people that embedded Linux systems work as it just looks like I've strayed from the "Microsoft is best" path. And I am sure sick of some of the patronising comments I get. Ummm that all seems to fit regards Spot! -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
