Companies that use open source software as well as create it should lobby the government for funding open source as well. This would include Google, IBM, Redhat, Microsoft, Facebook....
501(c)3 charitable ("non-profit") organizations are not permitted to lobby the government.
> generally seen as organizations doing good by their very definition
This isn't true at all. They just don't pass profits to shareholders.
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
Non-profits (including some tax exempt non-profits) may lobby, but charities are more restricted [0]. Note that charities -- 501(c)(3) organizations -- are not just tax exempt, but donations to them are tax deductible to the donors, which amounts to a public subsidy of donations that increases (due to progressive marginal income tax rates) with the income of the donor.
[0] But they may still lobby...as noted in the IRS page referenced upthread, charities "may engage in some lobbying", but lobbying can't be a "substantial part of its activities".
EFF I guess gets around it by being a lawsuit focused organization more? https://www.eff.org/about
Many of the open source projects mentioned already have a pretty strong vested financial interest behind them. They are no longer true open source projects.
I think it's natural for popular open source projects to eventually turn into businesses but I think there is a point where they really shouldn't be considered 'open source' any more and Mozilla is definitely one of them.
As long as the source is open under a permissive licence they are open source.
If someone has figured out a way to make a profit model around it - I would say, that is a bonus as it entails support for a long time and guarantees end-user-valuable goals driving the project.
I think the word you're having more of an issue with isn't 'open source', but defining what exactly a 'project' is vs. a business. On that latter point, I would agree with you that a project doesn't seem as much of a 'project' when most of the core people are employed to work on it towards specific goals the funders have designated.
I think the consumers of the open source software must be responsible to ensure financial health of those projects and not tax payers. Simply because in such cases more useful projects would thrive where as bad projects would die out quickly.
The last thing I want to hear is that Mozila called Bill Clinton for a lecture paid him $1M and later Hillary gave a grant of $100M of my money to Mozilla. That is how governments works.