Hacker News Reader

Mozilla is a for-profit owned by a non-profit. The for-profit organization develops Firefox.

(That said it’s run by the same people with the same outlook, so it feels like a non-profit even if it’s not.)

Seems like an unnecessary complexity for what should be a browser maker.

It’s a necessary complexity, particularly given that Mozilla predates the existence of Benefit Corporations by a dozen years. As a purely non-profit corporation, having most of your revenue come from business income is a big problem. As a for-profit, director’s fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders can get in the way of pursuing a public good mission. And, collaboration with for profit orgs gets a little less regulatory scrutiny if a non-profit is in control.

> As a purely non-profit corporation, having most of your revenue come from business income is a big problem.

What's the exact problem?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com