🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan3.054314.18948@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <C09qwG.8no@news.udel.edu> 
>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>MZ:
>>>FSF does not give away its CD-ROM or distribution tapes;
>>>but up until this time, it has been able to explain charging for them
>>>as "distribution fees"; with the introduction of the differential
>>>pricing scheme for individuals and businesses, this explanation no
>>>longer holds any water.
>
>BJ:
>>Okay, I'll bite ... how would a pricing differential prevent FSF 
>>from using a "distribution fee" explanation, if that was indeed
>>the only way to "explain" a fee?   
>
>Surely you can answer this question yourself.

No, I cannot.  If I could have answered the question I would 
have done so rather than use it as a cheap rhetorical ploy.

Businesses often offer similar products - or even the same 
product - at different prices to different customers.  There
is certainly no law (or even tradition) that dictates that 
products with the same cost of manufacture or distribution
must be sold for the same price to all customers.  Nor is 
there a law or tradition that prevents a non-profit entity
from engaging in transactions under such pricing policies.

For example, I once purchased a copy of a commercial software 
package at an "academic discount".  It differed (in physical 
content, licensing, and support rights) from that sold at 
"full price" only in that I was asked as a purchaser to offer
proof that I met the seller's eligibility criteria. 

Other examples:  special pricing for children, retired people,
the aged, the poor, etc.  Such differential pricing is done
by both businesses and non-profit organizations (museums, etc.).

Many objections raised by contributors to this thread seem to be 
founded on a misunderstanding of "non-profit" status as the term 
is applied to an organization such as the FSF.  Someone else
may be able to supply a strict legal definition, but the layman's
sense is easier to explain in terms of what it is not:  "non-profit"
status does not mean that an organization is prohibited from, say,
selling Girl Scout Cookies or raffle tickets for more than cost.

In other words, "non-profit" is to be understood in a year-end 
accounting sense, and in the overall goals of the organization.
It is not a criterion to be applied to each financial transaction 
engaged in by the organization.

As a fund-raising entity, FSF (by virtue of the GPL) must compete
with those who are willing to provide similar tapes or CD-ROMs
more cheaply, just as the Girl Scouts compete with other cookie
vendors.  In order to be successful raising funds by selling cookies 
or selling tapes, the seller must pay attention to the interests
of the customer.  The fact that such behavior resembles that of
a successful for-profit marketeer does not change the non-profit
status of the seller.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949