🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan12.160747.19249@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
> In article <1993Jan12.173830.18153@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
> writes apropos of the boycott of Apple by the FSF, allegedly initiated
> in order not to "waste FSF resources supporting a company with
> particularly anti-FSF business practices":

> >It's not a squabble.  Please don't ask them (us) to compromise their (our)
> >beliefs for your convenience.  You bought the Mac, implicitly supporting
> >Apple's business practices--now live with your decision.  Keep the Mac and
> >forget GNU software or replace the Mac.  The choice is yours.

> How interesting.  I would like to find out to find the extent to which
> the Foundation's pursuit of its beliefs in this matter conflicts with
> its tax-exempt status, insofar as it surely contradicts its alleged
> charitable ends.  Is there a lawyer in the house?

Hmmm.... Are they a charity?  They do accept donations, but so does
Common Cause, the ACLU, the Heritage Foundation, etc.  Of the three,
only one, the ACLU, can remotely be called a charity, and they pick
and choose what cases they will represent for free based on their own
agenda or mission (manifesto).  They all are non-profits, and I'm sure
they are registered with the IRS as such.

Want an example of an organization that actively supports boycotting
from time to time?  How about the NAACP?  They've done that to advance
their goals.

So, are you sure you have a legitimate beef on FSF's tax exempt status?
=== Al