No subject

organizational structure is different to that of a for-profit. As is the
differences between co-ops, a privately owned company, and a publicly trade=
d
one.

The Mozilla Foundation has no obligations towards shareholders or investors=
.
Any surplus is reinvested back into the project and the project's goals hav=
e
been outlined from its inception (and they're not to make money). It is als=
o
called the 'charity sector' for a reason.

For you to say, that just because Firefox has a revenue it has a
'for-profit' driven agenda, is a fallacy.

Alex

--000325559a7e477e0c047aa3e84d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/12/13 Erik Andr=E9n <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:erik.andren at gmail.com">erik.andren at gmail.com</a>&gt;</span=
><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(=
204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

As stated above, Firefox also has a profit-driven agenda. It&#39;s not a co=
incidence that the default start pages contains a google search bar.<br></b=
lockquote></div><br>From the minute Firefox is declared a non-profit organi=
zation, the whole organizational structure is different to that of a for-pr=
ofit. As is the differences between co-ops, a privately owned company, and =
a publicly traded one.<br>

<br>The Mozilla Foundation has no obligations towards shareholders or inves=
tors. Any surplus is reinvested back into the project and the project&#39;s=
 goals have been outlined from its inception (and they&#39;re not to make m=
oney). It is also called the &#39;charity sector&#39; for a reason.<br>

<br>For you to say, that just because Firefox has a revenue it has a &#39;f=
or-profit&#39; driven agenda, is a fallacy.<br><br>Alex<br>

--000325559a7e477e0c047aa3e84d--