[m55au]

Exactly, I would even say the foundation has not only lots, but everything to do with Firefox. I don't understand how there are so many "ackshually" guys in this thread. It is all the same thing, Mozilla, and the separation is and has always been only a technicality, nothing more. It is exactly the same as saying The Walt Disney Company has nothing to do with Disney+.

[TheRealPomax]

Maybe looks at someone's bio?

I worked there for a decade, so I'm pretty confident when I say "no, it has literally nothing to do with Firefox". They are two completely different orgs with different execs, different boards, working on completely different things. The Foundation has no say over what happens on the corp side.

[thayne]

I wouldn't call getting the profits from the corporation (whether through dividends or "royalties"), and having the power to choose the board of directors as "nothing". And the stated purpose of the corporation is to further the "public benefit" of the foundation.

Sure they are separate organizations, but they are at least a little related.

[TheRealPomax]

They don't, though. The only money they get from corp is the brand license fee, which in good "we have a corp and non-profit" tradition is fluid but can't exceed a specific amount, and they only "have the power to choose the board" on paper. In reality, the only thing that ties the two orgs together are Surman and Baker.

[m55au]

The corp is a subsidiary. It is irrelevant if and how long you worked there for, the parent company has the financial and legal control over all the subsidiaries. The foundation literally owns the corporation, no need for quotation marks. If they have not or do not exercise that control or interfere in the day-to-day life today, that does not mean they will not do it tomorrow or whenever it becomes necessary. When shit hits the fan all that matters is what's on the paper.

I can also say, that my hypothetical landlord has nothing to do with the place I have lived in for 10 years. So therefore they do not "own" it.

[m55au]

First of all, I'm not that young and naive to appeal to authority any more after having met too many so-called experts why have only succeeded by the "fake it til you make it" technique. So checking someones bio is unnecessary.

"The Mozilla Foundation will ultimately control the activities of the Mozilla Corporation and will retain its 100 percent ownership of the new subsidiary. Any profits made by the Mozilla Corporation will be invested back into the Mozilla project. There will be no shareholders, no stock options will be issued and no dividends will be paid. The Mozilla Corporation will not be floating on the stock market and it will be impossible for any company to take over or buy a stake in the subsidiary. The Mozilla Foundation will continue to own the Mozilla trademarks and other intellectual property and will license them to the Mozilla Corporation. The Foundation will also continue to govern the source code repository and control who is allowed to check in."

https://web.archive.org/web/20060907025204/http://www.mozill...

If this is wrong, please remove it from Wikipedia too, or add an explanation why this plan failed.

Also, if this is wrong, we cannot trust what anyone from Mozilla has to say, including you since they can say one thing and do another.

Also, if this is wrong, why are there consolidated financial statements of "MOZILLA FOUNDATION AND SUBSIDIARIES (Mozilla)" https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202... According to the report, Mozilla foundation (and its subsidiaries) had a revenue of $600M in 2021. If the foundation has no control over the corporation, how can it include the revenue of the corp in its financial report? Is something fraudulent going on in Mozilla?