[patentatt]

I think the gp’s point is that to a lot of entities (employees, suppliers) there is little difference between for profit and non profit. And if your nonprofit is passing profit along to a for profit ... you can see how the lines blur. Maybe a way to interpret the above comment is that the incentive structure for many people involved is not significantly impacted by the nonprofit status. And non profits can have money left over at the end of the year, they just don’t distribute it to shareholders.

[Symbiote]

The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity registered in England and Wales. "The object of the charity is to further the advancement of education of adults and children, particularly in the field of Computers, Computer Science and related subjects." They have a trading subsidiary.

Anyone sufficiently cynical (not me) can read the accounts of both entities:

- https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details?regid=...

- https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08207441

[kasbah]

Interesting, didn't know this, only up to 2017 is published, but that year they report:

> This was another year of exceptional growth with Revenues at £25.5m (2016 - 16.3m) and Operating Profit of £9.7m (2016 - £8.9m)

[OJFord]

And that's a binding object - charities' trustees are legally accountable to ensuring the charity acts to fulfill its stated aims.

[boomlinde]

Hence they aren't dealing with investors, which was his original question.

[morphle]

I'd say that Broadcom is the mayor investor here.

[KaiserPro]

its a charity, and unlike in the US, charities are tightly controlled and have to publish reasonably detailed finances.