Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 8 February 2011 16:36, BRM <> wrote:

----- Original Message ----

From: Ian Lynch <>
On 8 February 2011 11:34, Florian Effenberger <


thanks for your contributions, great to  see things moving! :-)

Well, I think opening an US bank account  is problematic at least from
time perspective, but maybe also from a  legal PoV - our association
not be eligible to do so, as we are  accredited in Germany and have
tax rules applied  here.

Jonathan Aquilina wrote on 2011-02-08  10.18:

 Is the TDF an NGO. If its based in the EU the  organization can
get a lot of funding from the EU  itself.

IIRC, the EU only funds existing entities,  i.e. they will only fund us
the Foundation itself  exists.

That is correct. One avenue would be to create a company  limited by
guarantee or Community Interest Company in the UK - costs about 50  Euro
then use that to raise money to set up the German Foundation after  say a
year and just transfer any surplus money. Note that for EU grants you
to submit accounts so probably you need a years operation to generate
So the earlier the better. Of course there are some advantages to  having
sister companies since they could be partners in an EU project.  That
even be a deliberate strategy. You could then get money for study  visits
mobilities between them. Organise a preparatory meeting at one and  you
the potential for people from other countries to get paid by their  NA to
attend the meeting. You could even set up a thematic network with
for partners to travel meet and discuss  things.

Why resort to deception and Microsoft-esque tactics to promote LO?

Why is it every time anyone thinks a little bit laterally, paranoia sets in
in relation to Microsoft :-)

This is nothing to do with deception, its about a simple strategy to work
through national bureaucratic systems which have significant differences in
order to arrive at a perfectly legal and transparent outcome to meet the
needs of the community.

That is all having two companies owned by the same collective would do.

Not at all, many collectives have different companies and interests. It is
perfectly legal and reasonable to do so. You might have a company focused on
R&D and another on sales. There are common shareholdings across many large
companies and many that are organised in devolved ways.

So while it may be expedient to setup one company for a short term to raise
in order to convert to the other in the future (no problem), if that is
then the first
should be shut down upon conversion.

No problem at all with that but just like there are different native
language projects as part of the OOo community that operate with high
degrees of autonomy, there is no moral or legal reason not to have national
or regional foundations associated with LO. It really is just a matter of
selecting a preferred method of administration to the best meet the desired
outcomes of the project.

Everything you mention, aside from the deceptive partnerships, can be done
one entity.

I resent the inference that I am being deceptive. That is YOUR
interpretation of something that is perfectly transparent and perfectly


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.