Layoffs and CEO Resignation At OSDL

lisah writes "Big changes are afoot at Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) with today's surprise announcement of the departure of CEO Stuart Cohen and the layoff of nine other employees. Details are still emerging about what exactly this means for OSDL but according to a preliminary announcement, Cohen is 'leaving to pursue other open source opportunities' and OSDL is 'refocusing the scope of [their] work to better align resources with [their] revenues...'" The article also mentions the last year's layoff at OSDL.

Comments

Silly business-speak.

[Lethyos]

... refocusing the scope of [their] work to better align resources with [their] revenues ...

Or to put it in English: “we are not making enough money and we have to cut back.”

Reminds me of this one study I heard a while ago that found the more obfuscated and elaborate the wording is used by companies the worse their financial situations are. Very appropriate in this case.

Re:Silly business-speak.

[Fnkmaster]

Correct, but they aren't supposed to make money. To quote from their website: "OSDL is a nonprofit organization that provides state-of-the-art computing and test facilities to developers around the world."

Non-profit, ya see?

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[gstoddart]

The single biggest attraction of open source is that as a big corporation, you can leech the efforts of thousands of unpaid but experienced contractors and never once feel the need to give back. (e.g., Thanks Apache!)

Eh? There have been numerous times where I've grabbed some nice-free Apache software and used it for my purposes. Tomcat, xerces, xalan, jakarta, and a bunch of other things.

Apache is giving back by providing us with a huge amount of useable software that we're allowed to use to solve our own problems. Much of it has solved some of the tedious bits one would rather not have to write onesself.

How exactly is Apache leaching off developers other than being a central point where OSS developed code can be found by all? (Like that's a bad thing or something.)

(I'm specifically curious about this, I've always thought Apache was a good netizen and a place to get some useful stuff.)

Cheers

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[NineNine]

I've never understood how this is non-profit.

At the end of the financial year, there is no profit to be paid out to the owners. It all goes back into the company. Realistically, in this case, you're right... a lot of it goes to salaries. Although, you can't claim to be a "non-profit" company, and pay the CEO a kajillion dollars. Once you're a non-profit, then the IRS watches closely to make sure that people are paid reasonable amounts. You can't use it as a tax loophole (otherwise, every company on the planet would be a "non-profit") company. But, you're right, you still have to cover your expenses like any other company, or you have to close the doors and sell the Aeron chairs.

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[DerekLyons]

I've never understood how this is non-profit.

At the end of the financial year, there is no profit to be paid out to the owners. It all goes back into the company.

True
 
 

Realistically, in this case, you're right... a lot of it goes to salaries. Although, you can't claim to be a "non-profit" company, and pay the CEO a kajillion dollars.

False. There are no limits to the salaries than can be paid to the employees of a non-profit. (Being the CEO or Chairman of a large charity can be quite lucrative.)
 
 

Once you're a non-profit, then the IRS watches closely to make sure that people are paid reasonable amounts.

False. The IRS doesn't scrutinize the return of any single non-profit than do any single individual or business.
 
 

You can't use it as a tax loophole (otherwise, every company on the planet would be a "non-profit") company.

Partly correct - non profits are chartered, and must operate within that charter. Theu can't be chartered unless they are a (generally speaking) charitable, social (fraternal), or educational organization.