501(c)(3) literally means the Mozilla Foundation is tax exempt. That is what the section of the law establishes.
That places limits on what sorts of commercial agreements the foundation can make, among other things.
Mozilla isn’t trying to tax dodge like certain other companies; the Mozilla Corporation is taxable, hires engineers, and enters into search agreements.
The corporation being owned by the foundation means it is obligated to follow the foundation’s public benefit goals.
I'm familiar with tax exemption - my question is more surrounding any benefits of the way they're organized. They, for example could just be a benefit corporation. I doubt this would be better as donations would no longer be tax exempt, among other things.
I guess I'm just curious to the pros and cons of the way they're organized as of now.
Are you implying it somehow is meaningfully different? Also, I actually tried asking my technically inclined friends and none of them were aware that Mozilla was a non-profit, to my surprise. So I can’t agree with either your premise or your conclusion.
> Are you implying it somehow is meaningfully different?
I don't know what you're asking. Different from what?
You think the fact that your friends have never heard that Mozilla is a non-profit contradicts what I wrote? I did not say that most people know that Mozilla is a non-profit. I didn't even say that most technical people would know that.
That places limits on what sorts of commercial agreements the foundation can make, among other things.
Mozilla isn’t trying to tax dodge like certain other companies; the Mozilla Corporation is taxable, hires engineers, and enters into search agreements.
The corporation being owned by the foundation means it is obligated to follow the foundation’s public benefit goals.