On 04/26/11 7:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Foundation is not a legal term >> "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted >> with "public charity". >> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000509----000-.html >> http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html > Yeh, I think we'd have to look up more than that to actually clarify all > this. Bottom line: the terms are ambiguous except so far as they are > legally defined in one context or another. Although the NYT's journalist > did have a point. The Ford or Rockefeller Foundations were funded; > Wikimedia Foundation is not.
I mostly agree with the NYT article except at the end where it defines a charity on the basis of where it gets its money. Being a charity really depends on what it does with its money. It depends on the common law concept of charitable purposes and the 1601 Statue of Elizabeth. Sure enough Wikmedia employs a misnomer when it calls itself a Foundation. Whether an entity is "public" or "private" has more to do with its funding sources. Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
