Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Attacks Gates, Microsoft, & Charity Foundation
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, has an article in the BBC in which he maintains that Gates' departure from Microsoft doesn't mean the end of proprietary software and that the free software community needs to stand strong to undo the damages Bill Gates, Microsoft, and other proprietary software vendors (explicitly naming Apple & Adobe amongst them) have done. And he slips in a claim that the Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation doesn't really help the poor; it just pretends to while actually subjecting them to greater harm."
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Have a read of this article from the LA times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I think that's what Stallman is referring to.
Don't know how much is true, but it makes depressing reading.
There's also this story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
The reason they 'only spend 10%' is because they have a endowment to maintain.
I'm not sure anyone is criticising the foundation's financial model, but the LA Times has questioned the nature of the investments that the foundation makes to sustain itself.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I believe the assertion being made is that the foundation's charitable efforts are being sabotaged by its unethical investments.
My look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation shows it was founded with two primary purposes:
- Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes. By giving it to a charity he controls, he gets additional benefits.
- As PR for Microsoft against the anti-trust investigation.
Bill Gates has been rich since the 1980s, but his Foundation didn't really get any significant money until 1999. And then Bill then realized around 2004 that he could run his Foundation as his "retirement", and so started giving it more focus.
By checking out the contributions provided at www.gatesfoundation.org, you can see (this is complicated by the fact he had two charities, with the primary one now being the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation):
- As of 1998, Bill Gates had donated a grand total of $300million to both of his charities. That's not for that year, that's over all previous years combined, with interest/appreciation. This number is embarrassingly low for a person worth $100billion. However, it's probably just about the right amount to maximize his tax savings on a yearly basis. Also, the charity was building an endowment, and not spending all that much money.
- Then suddenly, in 1999, in the middle of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit, he gives $15 billion. He gives another $5 billion in 2000.
- Then, once the anti-trust lawsuit effectively ended, in 2001, he gives $0. Yup, check it out yourself. Probably because he took a loss that year due to the stock market drop, didn't need the tax writeoff anymore, and didn't need the PR.
- In 2002, he gives $82.5million, again, back to the tax dodge. He gives $81.9 million in 2003. He's still worth $40-50 billion dollars due to Microsoft stock.
- In 2004, he starts to give his charity a little more notice, and starts donating $700million in 2004, $442 million in 2005, $333million in 2006, and $1.2billion in 2007.
I wouldn't be surprised if the recipients of his money found it had lots of strings attached, but I'm not interested enough to dig up all this dirt. Although it's nice he's giving some of his money away, IMNSHO, it's just about the least he could do (except for the $20billion PR stunt). I also think the expenses for this foundation are quite high, and are probably more of a tax dodge. The foundation also spends considerably less than he has contributed, so it's building a very large endowment. It seems benign. So far.
I liken it to a king tossing silver coins to the rabble around his carriage--but doing it only when the press is around.
Richard Matthew Stallman designed and championed the GPL, the license under which Linux is provided. It is that umbrella philosophy that allows Linux to be the powerhouse that it is today. No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior.
Give away a dollar to save 40 cents.
No, you're missing the point. When he gave the money to the foundation, he was not giving it away; he was just transferring the money from his personal wealth to the foundation's wealth (which he controls). I'll shift from the Gates foundation (which may be entirely legitimate) to the Ford Foundation for the example.
Henry Ford transferred stock from his personal wealth to the foundation. He gave away nothing, as he controlled both his personal wealth and the foundation. The difference is that when he died, his heirs paid inheritance taxes on the personal wealth transferred from him to them; no tax was paid on the foundation assets, even though control passed from Henry to heirs.
The Ford Foundation has since stopped being the largest owner of Ford stock (in 1956, when the stock went public) and stopped being controlled by the Ford family (in 1976, when Henry II stepped down).
It's also interesting that the Ford Foundation gives away an even smaller proportion of its assets than the Gates foundation does. According to wikipedia, the Ford Foundation gave away only $530 million on assets of $13.7 billion, about 4% rather than Gates' 10%.
Transferring wealth to a foundation is not like giving money away. The money isn't given away until the foundation actually does so. While its under foundation control, it can still be controlled by the person who established the foundation (depending on the rules of the foundation). That's ignoring any additional dodges, e.g. using the foundation money to issue loans to your corporation or employ your relatives.