Software Freedom Conservancy

[Jeremy White]

I'd like to start a separate thread on this subject, so
we don't lose the chance to discuss this.

I think it's a really good idea for us to join.

Right now, I manage the finances for 'The Wine Project'.
The money literally flows into my personal bank account;
I registered a 'Doing Business As' (DBA) in Minnesota
so I could take checks and stuff as 'The Wine Project'.

It's not tons of money, but the account is now up
to about $2400 (which is nice, as our Wineconf fees
will be about that much).  (Of course, without the
embezzling, it'd be much more, but that's the way
it goes <grin>).

Further, we had a challenge when we needed to
manage the money from Google for the Summer of Code.
Again, I handled it via CodeWeavers, but it wasn't quite 'right'.

So I think it would be better for us to have a professional
organization to hold these funds, and to serve
as an umbrella organization for us.

Candidly, I'm not sure I see any down side.
They do all the nasty work, and we get someone to help
us out with annoying admin chores.  What's not to like?

I guess if they prove to be incompetent or unresponsive
it could be an issue (like if we send them the $2400
but can never get a check cut).  But right now I
don't see much risk of that; the SFLC at least has been
very responsive (which, considering what we're paying
them [$0] is nothing short of miraculous).

Anyone else have any objections or other thoughts on it?

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Scott Ritchie]

On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 21:48 -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
> Anyone else have any objections or other thoughts on it?

Let's remember that it's not just firms like Google that could give "the
Wine project" money.  Wine has some serious potential value for a whole
lot of people - scientists, governments, businesses, charities, etc.
What this means is that we're eligible for a whole ton of grants that
nobody has ever even bothered to apply for.

With the officialness of a respected nonprofit to act as a neutral body,
we can start applying for these things.  Significantly, interested
donors can also get tax deductions and all the other side benefits that
such charities bring.

A while back I began seriously thinking about the possibility of
nonprofit status and began researching into all sorts of grants and
fundraising sources that Wine could potentially tap.  Needless to say,
now I have reason to dig up my notes and look into it further.

Thanks,
Scott Ritchie

[Steven Edwards]

Hi,

On 4/1/06, Scott Ritchie  wrote:
> A while back I began seriously thinking about the possibility of
> nonprofit status and began researching into all sorts of grants and
> fundraising sources that Wine could potentially tap.  Needless to say,
> now I have reason to dig up my notes and look into it further.

I did quite a lot of work with this for the ReactOS project and
actually did all the paperwork required so I am happy to help in any
way. ReactOS does not get nearly as much support as Wine does and so
it mostly amounted to a waste of time and money for me. I have decided
to disband the ReactOS Foundation due to this and a number of other
reasons but I think the time has come for a Wine Foundation.

If Wine is every going to get the support it needs beyond CodeWeavers
I think there needs to be the organization there to handle large cash
donations in the event IBM (Gasp) or anyone else ever decides to join
the party.

--
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:29:50PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 21:48 -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
> > Anyone else have any objections or other thoughts on it?
>
> Let's remember that it's not just firms like Google that could give "the
> Wine project" money.  Wine has some serious potential value for a whole
> lot of people - scientists, governments, businesses, charities, etc.
> What this means is that we're eligible for a whole ton of grants that
> nobody has ever even bothered to apply for.

Uh... not to disturb this discussion or anything, but isn't this here:

http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2006033001926NWBZDV

as planned by OSDL just about EXACTLY what would be needed?

IMHO administrative stuff such as project financing would best be done by one
central party for many projects, due to the many legal and administrative
issues involved (JFYI: the *very only* reason for the recent Lobby4Linux Austin
project failure was - you guessed it - management of donation finances
and nobody willing to carry that risk and responsibility!! A shame, really...).

These things should *really* be centralized I think, so please push into that direction
and get OSDL to widen its scope if needed and possible.

This is long overdue IMHO.

Andreas

[Brian Vincent]

On 3/31/06, Jeremy White  wrote:
> Anyone else have any objections or other thoughts on it?

My $.02 is that it's necessary.  Last year I had a chance for someone local
to make a donation but they needed to do it to a registered 501c3
organization.  Well, the money ended up going to a local charity instead.

The last thing Jeremy needs is to have money passing through CW and I think
we should get our finances straight.  This really sounds like a win-win
situation and I can't think of a single drawback.  The real important thing
is the taxes get done correctly so we don't lose the 501c3 exemption.

Assuming it gets set up, I'll volunteer to go out and scrounge for some
cash.  Having some $$$ on hand wouldn't be a bad problem to have.

-Brian