[em3rgent0rdr]

I wouldn't consider the result of legal settlement to be a "donation". A donation is a voluntary transfer of money. Had craigslist received $1M from a settlement and then voluntarily sent EFF $1M without being specified to in the legal settlement, then that would be a donation. The correct interpretation is that the $1M transfer is part of a legal settlement to resolve a lawsuit. I haven't followed this lawsuit too closely, but it sounds like craigslist might not have had a "open-and-closed" case, hence the need to offer these amenable terms to sweeten the terms of surrender, and thus hasten the resolution.

"As part of the settlement, 3taps and its founder, Greg Kidd, have agreed to pay craigslist $1 million, all of which must then be paid by craigslist to the EFF, "

[zck]

Yes; specifically, if the proposed settlement was "3taps will give Craigslist $1 million, which Craigslist will have no restrictions on", then 3taps might not have agreed to it.

[res0nat0r]

Maybe CL initiated the requirement that the money was going to go to the EFF after being paid to them? Seems like most of the ill-will related speculation might be just that until there is any evidence either way...

[taejo]

If they wanted to donate the money to the EFF, they wouldn't have needed to bind themselves to that in the settlement.

[teacup50]

I often bind myself to ethical decisions in business. Taking away the opportunity to do the wrong thing later is a safety feature.

[Dylan16807]

If you want to bind yourself to a donation, fill out a check and mail it.

This is not really a donation.

[dogweather]

It's not specified in the legal documents. Take a look at the PDF's.

It's only "specified" in Kidd's own blog post.