[virtue3]

They tried to make the actual points. But they got shot down pretty hard. The real issue seems to be that providing the work without illustrating and tracking who uses the software (so that you're being charitable and helping the less fortunate) means you aren't being charitable...

http://blogs.gnome.org/jnelson/2014/06/30/the-new-501c3-and-...

Personally, they're one of the places I interviewed at right out of college (I got wrecked pretty hard as they were my first ever whiteboard test haha). They're driven and they firmly believe in trying to help people with free software. It's a real shame they got denied.

[pdabbadabba]

Yeah, I wish they hadn't been denied as well, particularly given that it probably would have been possible for them to get it if they were really committed. But they would really need to retool their website and other materials (and, if necessary, their actual organizational mission) to communicate the fact that they have some goal other than just making free software. As you say, this could have included taking some concrete steps to ensure that their software benefitted the poor.

[shard972]

> The real issue seems to be that providing the work without illustrating and tracking who uses the software (so that you're being charitable and helping the less fortunate) means you aren't being charitable...

Seems like a pretty shitty reason to deny a possible open source company non-profit status on the grounds they aren't tracking their users.....