|
Top-level
Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla, but am speaking for myself. Yes, Moz Corp is for-profit, owned by the Foundation. But most tech cos are either public or funded by VC money. In both cases, there's a ton of pressure to maximize growth, forever. Profitable isn't enough, gotta maximize that shareholder value. At Mozilla, nobody's extracting the $. In fact, Moz Corp *can't* give too much to its owner, or the Foundation will lose its nonprofit status. 7 comments
This means the incentives and demands are different. For Moz Corp "maximizing shareholder value" means serving the shareholder's mission. Since nobody is extracting the money that Moz Corp makes, there's no capitalistic pressure for perpetual growth. As long as Mozilla can pay the bills, it can keep operating. Being for-profit means no operational constraints like non-profits have. And the legal structure is more protected from co-option than most, IMO. @nonsequitarian @tom4okstate @liaizon So what you're saying is that you "maximize the value" to the stakeholders, or the users (the public) who benefit from Mozilla's services (which run according to its principles); And all operations are overseen by the non-profit Mozilla Foundation? @dalfen @tom4okstate @liaizon@social.wake.st The operations aren't overseen by the foundation, exactly. Mozilla Corp has a board, as does the foundation. Leadership of the two overlaps. What I'm really saying is that unlike other companies, Mozilla doesn't need or want to dominate a market. It needs to *compete* on the market, but its interests align with a vibrant ecosystem supporting open standards and user choice. How does the mission of the Mozilla Corporation compare to that of the Mozilla Foundation? Can't find the missions at the moment, but both organizations serve the manifesto: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ |
Gregory's Server
@nonsequitarian @tom4okstate @liaizon
Mozilla corporation is wholly-owned. Does it have shareholders?