> Because we are a 501(c)(6), OSC is not a registered 501(c)(3) charity; donations to hosted member projects are not tax-deductible. This is consistent with IRS guidelines — open source donations aren't automatically classified as charitable simply because they are FOSS.
> If your project has a clear charitable purpose, a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor may be a good fit.
IANAL, but it seems like the wording in the public-facing version of the policy is a little muddy. As far as I'm aware, "tax exempt donation" not a thing that actually exists in US tax law. It seems to be a conflation of "tax deductible donation" and "tax exempt organization".
Knowing how big corporations do things, that document was likely written by someone who doesn't fully understand the jargon or even how pedantic you have to be about words when dealing with legal concepts, who didn't set the policy themself, and who is not responsible for enforcing the policy. So we should take its specific choice of words with a grain of salt.
This feels like a bit of a "you must exist in society" situation. If you rule out every company that does any business with Israel you will have a hard time buying anything.
First time I'm hearing of BDS. Looks like they want to boycott companies that help oppress Palestine (just going off of their homepage here). Since I don't know them, I'll speak generally of boycotts such as against e.g. Nestlé: Saying it's futile because you can't do it perfectly seems silly to me. You can't do everything right in life but you can try right? Minimise harm (as you see it) even if you can't take it away fully
The suggestion here is to boycott a printer because it uses a print head part from HP who sells servers to Israel.
The number of steps here is enough that you could rule out everything. And anything you think is left is just something you aren’t aware of a chain that links them.
The IndieWeb people use Microformats[1] extensively for things like Webmention[2] and such. Seems quite neat, though maybe I'd prefer the tags to be data attributes instead of classes.
Yeah that looks to be the case. Reading the OpenFront readme, it looks like they transitioned to the AGPL believing it to be stricter (which it might be?).
What's also funny is the FrontWars fork's readme.md [1] has not been changed at all, and still credits the OpenFront maintainer as the project maintainer:
> The project maintainer (evan) has final authority on all code changes and design decisions
It is stricter in the sense that AGPL says you have to release source code even if you only distribute the software to a user via a network (i.e., browser) as opposed to a direct/binary distribution.
So in my lay (possibly incorrect) opinion the AGPL made the difference in them having to release the code at all. So in that way it did help. If the user thought this would stop clones then they don't understand software licensing (nor open source).
reply