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.
> 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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_IKEA_Foundation
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/what-we-fund/
> 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.