> it subsequently restructured into a for-profit company with the nonprofit owned under the same umbrella company.
Wikipedia says the for-profit part is owned by the non-profit, not under the same umbrella company.
Mozilla Foundation/Corporation does this too IIRC. It's what allows them to to pursue serious revenue streams with the for-profit part, while still steering their mission with the non-profit in charge, as long as they keep a separation in some kinds of revenue terms.
EDIT after 56 minutes: Hell, even IKEA does this type of ownership structure. So it's quite cool, but probably not all that "wacky" as far as enterprises that want to be socially responsible go.
Serious revenue streams like having Google for a patron yes? I feel like the context is important here because people are trying to defend OpenAI's structure as somehow well considered and definitely not naively idealistic. Which is great and possible in theory, but in reality seems to end up with situations exactly like Firefox where the product that is some how supposed to be better/liberating/more ethical/whatever virtue is in fashion/etc. is ultimately only sustainable because of a patron who doesn't share in exemplifying that same idealism.
Ah, I edited my comment right as you were writing yours.
> Serious revenue streams like having Google for a patron yes? I feel like the context is important here because […]
For that specific example, Mozilla did also go with Yahoo for as-good revenue for a couple of years IIRC, and they are also able to (at least try to) branch out with their VPN, Pocket, etc. The Google situation is more a product of simply existing as an Internet-dependent company in the modern age, combined with some bad business decisions by the Mozilla Corpo, that would have been the case regardless of their ownership structure.
> Which is great and possible in theory, but […] is ultimately only sustainable because of a patron who doesn't share in exemplifying that same idealism.
The for-profit-owned-by-nonprofit model works, but as with most things it tends to work better if you're in a market that isn't dominated by a small handful of monopolies which actively punish prosocial behaviour:
> people are trying to defend OpenAI's structure as somehow well considered and definitely not naively idealistic.
Ultimately I'm not sure what the point you're trying to argue is.
The structure's obviously not perfect, but the most probable alternatives are to either (1) have a single for-profit that just straight-up doesn't care about anything other than greed, or (2) have a single non-profit that has to rely entirely on donations without any serious commercial power, both of which would obviously be worse scenarios.
They're still beholden to market forces like everybody else, but a couple hundred million dollars in charity every year, plus a couple billion-dollar companies that at least try to do the right thing within the limits of their power, is obviously still better than not.
Wikipedia says the for-profit part is owned by the non-profit, not under the same umbrella company.
Mozilla Foundation/Corporation does this too IIRC. It's what allows them to to pursue serious revenue streams with the for-profit part, while still steering their mission with the non-profit in charge, as long as they keep a separation in some kinds of revenue terms.
EDIT after 56 minutes: Hell, even IKEA does this type of ownership structure. So it's quite cool, but probably not all that "wacky" as far as enterprises that want to be socially responsible go.