NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/4159

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4159 talk.philosophy.misc:3124
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!wupost!udel!news.udel.edu!me.udel.edu!johnston
From: [e-mail] (Bill Johnston)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: me.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:15:28 GMT
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Bill Johnston) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>[e-mail] (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>MZ:
>>>FSF does not give away its CD-ROM or distribution tapes;
>>>but up until this time, it has been able to explain charging for them
>>>as "distribution fees"; with the introduction of the differential
>>>pricing scheme for individuals and businesses, this explanation no
>>>longer holds any water.
>
>BJ:
>>Okay, I'll bite ... how would a pricing differential prevent FSF
>>from using a "distribution fee" explanation, if that was indeed
>>the only way to "explain" a fee?
>
>Surely you can answer this question yourself.

No, I cannot.  If I could have answered the question I would
have done so rather than use it as a cheap rhetorical ploy.

Businesses often offer similar products - or even the same
product - at different prices to different customers.  There
is certainly no law (or even tradition) that dictates that
products with the same cost of manufacture or distribution
must be sold for the same price to all customers.  Nor is
there a law or tradition that prevents a non-profit entity
from engaging in transactions under such pricing policies.

For example, I once purchased a copy of a commercial software
package at an "academic discount".  It differed (in physical
content, licensing, and support rights) from that sold at
"full price" only in that I was asked as a purchaser to offer
proof that I met the seller's eligibility criteria.

Other examples:  special pricing for children, retired people,
the aged, the poor, etc.  Such differential pricing is done
by both businesses and non-profit organizations (museums, etc.).

Many objections raised by contributors to this thread seem to be
founded on a misunderstanding of "non-profit" status as the term
is applied to an organization such as the FSF.  Someone else
may be able to supply a strict legal definition, but the layman's
sense is easier to explain in terms of what it is not:  "non-profit"
status does not mean that an organization is prohibited from, say,
selling Girl Scout Cookies or raffle tickets for more than cost.

In other words, "non-profit" is to be understood in a year-end
accounting sense, and in the overall goals of the organization.
It is not a criterion to be applied to each financial transaction
engaged in by the organization.

As a fund-raising entity, FSF (by virtue of the GPL) must compete
with those who are willing to provide similar tapes or CD-ROMs
more cheaply, just as the Girl Scouts compete with other cookie
vendors.  In order to be successful raising funds by selling cookies
or selling tapes, the seller must pay attention to the interests
of the customer.  The fact that such behavior resembles that of
a successful for-profit marketeer does not change the non-profit
status of the seller.
--
-- Bill Johnston ([e-mail])
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; [phone]