Firefox

17938 readers

2 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

Okay hear me out. What if we all chipped in 5 bucks to ? How many people would it take to fund it well enough so they don’t have to do layoffs? I get it, the FOSS community wants the “F” part (mastodon.social)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by brandonleedy@mastodon.social to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Okay hear me out. What if we all chipped in 5 bucks to @firefox? How many people would it take to fund it well enough so they don’t have to do layoffs? I get it, the FOSS community wants the “F” part but we all should contribute some for good infrastructure. And the idea that search engine payments from Google is what keeps Firefox afloat should worry us all. We need browser engine diversity if the web is going to stay open and not littered with walled gardens any more than it already is.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t think most of the legal restrictions apply at all, actually, as long as the entities are kept sufficiently separated. That’s one of the reasons non-profits use a for-profit subsidiary that pays taxes for its income. I’m not sure if they have to report the CEO salary on the 990, except the previous CEO was also a staff member of the Foundation (no other corporate executives are listed, despite likely being competitively compensated).

I have no problem with how it is set up, but to say the executive was making $400k is incorrect, as he has nothing to do with Firefox. The entity that is doing layoffs pays its executives millions.

I do wish they made the distinction more obvious though. I see a lot of criticism for advocacy things the Foundation does “distracting from Firefox” when it is not the case.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well, that's one point I meant, that the CEO is a Foundation employee, so the non-profit rules apply there. But the big one is that because the Corporation is wholly-owned by a non-profit, its only stakeholder where profits could get paid out to, is the non-profit which practically can't take it. ("Profit" excludes wages.)

So, the legally for-profit subsidiary actually doesn't have a profit motive to the same extent as traditional companies.
They do still want to make money, because contrary to the non-profit, they can save it up for bad times, and paying your workers at least industry-standard wages is also nice.

Which is also where the CEO salary comes from. Similar companies pay probably just as much or more. I fully agree that it's stupidly too much money, but we also cannot expect anyone to perform as a CEO out of the goodness of their hearts, and to not take an equivalent job at a company which does pay them stupidly too much money.

As for people not understanding the distinction between Foundation and Corporation, I agree that it's a bit of a problem, but I wouldn't want them to rebrand one or the other. My mum is already confused between "Mozilla" and "Firefox". I guess, they could call it "Firefox Company", but I do think both benefit from the shared branding.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Disagree. A job that pays 6 million attracts a person who wants 6 million and more. A job that pays less attracts a different kind of person. Look at how successful Wikipedia is, then look up their executive salaries.

EDIT: And, if it is the corp laying off, then that is money that could be keeping employees on board.