But even if a nonprofit suddenly started making a profit, seems like that would mostly be an IRS tax exemption violation rather than a breach of contract with the donors...? But again, I'm not a lawyer.
And OpenAI also has a complex structure in which the nonprofit controls a for-profit subsidiary, or something like that, similar to how Mozilla the nonprofit owns the for-profit Mozilla corp. I think Patagonia is similarly set up.
> I don't understand the framing of your question, is it "since he donated, he didn't expect anything in return, so he is not harmed no matter what they do"? Kinda seems like people asking for donations should not lie about the reason for the donation, even if it is a donation.
I guess donors can make restricted gifts, but if they don't, do they have a LEGAL (as opposed to merely ethical) right to expect the nonprofit to "do its mission" broadly? There are a gazillion nonprofits out there, and if every donor can micromanage them by alleging they are not following their mission, there would be millions of lawsuits... but then again, the average donor probably has somewhat less money and lawyers than Musk.
It’s not just a question in what you say the money is for it’s also a question of what the charity says the money is for.
A self defined cancer charity spending large sums on public information during the early days of the COVID outbreak likely has wiggle room. That same charity spending most of it’s money on scholarships for music students doesn’t. The second case suggests they raised money under false pretenses and would therefore face serious legal issues.
In practice large organizations that generally do what they say probably aren’t a risk. But the claim is essentially OpenAI abandoned its mission without returning the funds or what they used them for, which is a problem.
To be clear charities can pivot over time. If they active their primary mission or collect new funds under a different mission that’s generally fine. But a wildlife sanctuary can’t just use it’s land to build a collage.
I am not sure if a donation to a nonprofit entitles him to a say in its management. Might have to do with how he donated the money too? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/restricted-fund.asp
But even if a nonprofit suddenly started making a profit, seems like that would mostly be an IRS tax exemption violation rather than a breach of contract with the donors...? But again, I'm not a lawyer.
And OpenAI also has a complex structure in which the nonprofit controls a for-profit subsidiary, or something like that, similar to how Mozilla the nonprofit owns the for-profit Mozilla corp. I think Patagonia is similarly set up.
> I don't understand the framing of your question, is it "since he donated, he didn't expect anything in return, so he is not harmed no matter what they do"? Kinda seems like people asking for donations should not lie about the reason for the donation, even if it is a donation.
I guess donors can make restricted gifts, but if they don't, do they have a LEGAL (as opposed to merely ethical) right to expect the nonprofit to "do its mission" broadly? There are a gazillion nonprofits out there, and if every donor can micromanage them by alleging they are not following their mission, there would be millions of lawsuits... but then again, the average donor probably has somewhat less money and lawyers than Musk.