On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Jones
wrote:
> Does Fedora exist outside of the US (on the books)? Surely there must be a
> way to dissociate Redhat US sponsorship to an international non-profit that
> represents Fedora?
Been there, tried that... still have the scars. I'm happy to share
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Jones
wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 09:45 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>>
>>> So between sponsoring cons, travel, hardware, etc... what can *only*
>>> be done with Red Hat Cash? Is there anything that an indiv
On 04/04/2012 09:45 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
So between sponsoring cons, travel, hardware, etc... what can *only*
be done with Red Hat Cash? Is there anything that an individual
cannot say "I'll pay for that (and/or buy that) for you" ?
Abso
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:01 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> Perhaps we need to separate all ( legal? ) connections to Red Hat ( Red Hat
> would then just donate via the same method than anyone else ) to make this
> work or directly donate money/hw/stuff directly to each individual SIG's
> rep
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> So between sponsoring cons, travel, hardware, etc... what can *only*
> be done with Red Hat Cash? Is there anything that an individual
> cannot say "I'll pay for that (and/or buy that) for you" ?
Absolutely. An individual or organization can s
On 04/04/2012 05:14 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
It is not just US law. Most countries have similar rules in place for
non-profits due a long history of them being used as fronts for
governments and corporations for tax-dodging, espionage, bribery, and
other shenanigans. In this case the US la
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:29:06 -0700
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 4/4/12 11:28 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess. Let's
> > ignore that for a second.
> >
> > What about equipment?
> >
> > Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware th
On 4 April 2012 12:28, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess. Let's
> ignore that for a second.
>
> What about equipment?
>
> Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware that met
> the technology requirements of PHX, with a note that said
> Hardware is likely classified in tax code as an asset, where as food
> at a conference is not.
Well, it's an asset until you eat it :-)
Ok, that explains things. Legal technicality, but still a workable
process.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
> Used. There is a process for donating hardware in place, and it's been
> used before.
Ok, so it sounds like there's a method in place for entities-with-cash
to use that cash to benefit Fedora, as long as they are OK with not
getting the tax break and they're willing to go through a little
eff
> To be clear, it would be used but ownership still resides with whomever
> purchased the hardware.
Really? You can't donate hardware, you can only let Fedora borrow it?
If you sponsor catering at a con, do you need to get the food back at
some point too? Sounds like a silly distinction.
--
de
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 4/4/12 11:28 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>
>> Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess. Let's
>> ignore that for a second.
>>
>> What about equipment?
>>
>> Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware that met
Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess. Let's
ignore that for a second.
What about equipment?
Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware that met
the technology requirements of PHX, with a note that said "here,
yours, no strings attached" - what would happen
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Brendan Jones
wrote:
> Does that mean the only cold hard cash Fedora receives is from Redhat? Ie.
> all travel allownaces etc cmoe from that support?
Yes. We've had other companies help sponsor FUDCon events (thank
you!) and donate equipment, bandwidth, etc., but
On 04/04/2012 03:31 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
I, for one, would *love* to find a way for Fedora to be able to accept
funds from outside groups. I'm not complaining about Red Hat here --
I think they've been a great corporate sponsor of the Fedora Project,
and I don't personally see the need for
On 4 April 2012 07:31, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:23 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> wrote:
> Now, for the ugly part. One of the many complications is that if a US
> non-profit receives the majority of its funding and support from a
> single corporate entity, that the non-pr
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> Could you clarify whether the problem is that there is no way to donate at
> all, or that the donors cannot write the donations off their taxes?
Both. Red Hat has no way to accept outside money on behalf of Fedora,
and since Red Hat is a
On 04/04/2012 09:31 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
Now, for the ugly part. One of the many complications is that if a US
non-profit receives the majority of its funding and support from a
single corporate entity, that the non-profit begins to look like a tax
shelter, and at least under US law, that
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:23 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> I for one would think the project could be categorized as not for profit
> organization.
I'm not an attorney, and don't play one on the Internet, and I don't
pretend to have a completely understanding of all the nuances and
details,
On 04/04/2012 02:59 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Actually not just American tax law. European tax law (both EU and
national/provincial/etc), International trademark law (again US, EU,
and local ones), and various other corporation and non profit laws.
Basically you have to spend more time deal
On 3 April 2012 15:57, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 4/3/12 2:53 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>
>> Somehow other distro's have manage to find a way to fund themselves
>> perhaps we can adopt some of their model and implement it either
>> officially or unofficially...
>
>
> I suggest a long and
On 04/03/2012 09:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
The need for a full warranty is usually enough of a hurdle to limit
what the community as a bunch of individuals can do. Your idea of a
community started funding account is new though I think. It might be
worth exploring.
Arguably we ( as a community
> I don't think those were ever targetted as the ARM builder hardware
> that would go in PHX2. Jon mentioned "enterprise class" ARM servers
> numerous times. I was assuming that meant rack mountable.
It was a joke! Don't you people have a sense of humor?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedo
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>
>>> The rules are, it has to be rack mountable hardware
>>
>> Hmmm... how many Raspberry Pis can we fit in a rack?
>>
>> And at $35 each, spares would be cheaper than a warranty ;-)
>
> I don
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> The rules are, it has to be rack mountable hardware
>
> Hmmm... how many Raspberry Pis can we fit in a rack?
>
> And at $35 each, spares would be cheaper than a warranty ;-)
I don't think those were ever targetted as the ARM builder hardware
> The rules are, it has to be rack mountable hardware
Hmmm... how many Raspberry Pis can we fit in a rack?
And at $35 each, spares would be cheaper than a warranty ;-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
2012/4/3 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 04/03/2012 07:29 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> I really don't care who pays for the hardware, just that we
>> have hardware that meets the requirements for being in the colo.
>> ongoing hardware costs will likely be from one of Fedora engineering,
>> Relea
2012/4/3 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 04/03/2012 07:29 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> I really don't care who pays for the hardware, just that we
>> have hardware that meets the requirements for being in the colo.
>> ongoing hardware costs will likely be from one of Fedora engineering,
>> Relea
On 04/03/2012 07:29 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
I really don't care who pays for the hardware, just that we
have hardware that meets the requirements for being in the colo.
ongoing hardware costs will likely be from one of Fedora engineering,
Release engineering or Red Hat IT's budget.
Just out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:13:51 -0400
Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dennis Gilmore
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:58:11 -0700
> > Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >
> >> On 04
30 matches
Mail list logo
