Again, I wasn't directing any ire towards the FSF. I was merely challenging
your assertion that since they are a non-profit and legally bound to their
stated mission that they are incorruptible. Nothing humans do is
incorruptible.
I'm sure that the FSF is doing great things with the money that they are
receiving from Google.
That being said, it *is* possible that the money donated could influence the
direction of the FSF. There are many dragons to slay. Far more than the FSF
has the time or resources to fight. And if one of those dragons happens to be
something Google related, Google may threaten to stop funding the FSF if the
FSF tried to slay it. Now the FSF would have a choice to make. Should the FSF
ignore the Google dragon and spend the time and resources instead on going
after other dragons? Or should it go after the Google dragon and possibly
have to lay off 20% of the employees of the FSF as a result?
Now, I don't know how much Google donates. I don't care. I'm not arguing here
that any of this is happening. I'm merely highlighting a very common example
of the tough decisions that people have to make when money is involved. It's
the same thing with media. Media organizations are funded by advertising. The
media does expose`s on corrupt companies. Should the media organization
expose the wrong doings on the company that buys their advertising or go
after other companies?
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-donations or anti-advertising or
anti-non-profits or anti-charities. I'm just saying that claiming that the
FSF is incorruptible is false.
