Show HN: I founded a company and a platform to fund open source developers(equalize.digital)
equalize.digital
Show HN: I founded a company and a platform to fund open source developers
http://equalize.digital/immutable-coffee.html
58 comments
Might not be a bad idea to form a nonprofit -- thanks for this!! This is my first business venture so I was doing things very much "by the books" in the way of establishing everything.
As far as Immutable Coffee being a Stack Overflow replacement, I don't think that's accurate. Stack Overflow is already saturated enough that I don't think that there's any need for another website to exist for posterity's sake. Being able to google questions and answers doesn't feel like a very important goal, especially considering how quickly answers get invalidated with how fast programming moves anyway.
As far as it being a side-gig for open source developers, I think that's an accurate assessment -- unfortunately. I did try very hard to do something that sets this site apart from traditional freelancing, and that's in the quick pace which a developer can answer questions. It doesn't take much time at all to log onto IC and really quickly claim a few questions and start helping people, in contrast with how long it takes to set up traditional freelance gigs.
Thanks for believing in the mission! I have a few other ideas that are in the works with regards to this as well, that I'm just as excited to show HN.
As far as Immutable Coffee being a Stack Overflow replacement, I don't think that's accurate. Stack Overflow is already saturated enough that I don't think that there's any need for another website to exist for posterity's sake. Being able to google questions and answers doesn't feel like a very important goal, especially considering how quickly answers get invalidated with how fast programming moves anyway.
As far as it being a side-gig for open source developers, I think that's an accurate assessment -- unfortunately. I did try very hard to do something that sets this site apart from traditional freelancing, and that's in the quick pace which a developer can answer questions. It doesn't take much time at all to log onto IC and really quickly claim a few questions and start helping people, in contrast with how long it takes to set up traditional freelance gigs.
Thanks for believing in the mission! I have a few other ideas that are in the works with regards to this as well, that I'm just as excited to show HN.
A nonprofit may be a great model for you and I love nonprofits.
It’s been traditionally difficult for open source software organizations to get recognized as a 503c nonprofit (which allows people to make tax deductible donations). Things may have changed, but the IRS has struggled to decide if FOSS is truly volunteer work or is more of a tax shelter. A nonprofit can also be more overhead in terms of structure (you need a board), record keeping & accounting than an LLC (but not much more than a C-Corp).
Unless you’re operating model depends on donations, it might be worth staying an LLC for a while.
Check with a lawyer, accountant, or Stripe Atlas for real guidance. It’s been a while since I looked at firming a company.
It’s been traditionally difficult for open source software organizations to get recognized as a 503c nonprofit (which allows people to make tax deductible donations). Things may have changed, but the IRS has struggled to decide if FOSS is truly volunteer work or is more of a tax shelter. A nonprofit can also be more overhead in terms of structure (you need a board), record keeping & accounting than an LLC (but not much more than a C-Corp).
Unless you’re operating model depends on donations, it might be worth staying an LLC for a while.
Check with a lawyer, accountant, or Stripe Atlas for real guidance. It’s been a while since I looked at firming a company.
Stack Overflow needs a replacement because the community has become hostile to new users.
I wonder if immutable.coffee could allow the asker (or by default) publish the answer transcript as an immutable record. Then the public can upvote it, which becomes a rating system for answers and the experts who gave the answers.
The idea above might tend to only reward the experts who got there first, so that's something to think about.
I want to allow the answers and experts to be rated because eventually someone will try to exploit the honesty of the system and say "yeah just download this .exe and it will fix your problem.."
I wonder if immutable.coffee could allow the asker (or by default) publish the answer transcript as an immutable record. Then the public can upvote it, which becomes a rating system for answers and the experts who gave the answers.
The idea above might tend to only reward the experts who got there first, so that's something to think about.
I want to allow the answers and experts to be rated because eventually someone will try to exploit the honesty of the system and say "yeah just download this .exe and it will fix your problem.."
I love the mission too. I'm always on the lookout for new ways to fund open source. GitHub Sponsors is an interesting thing to watch, as well as Patreon.
Btw, there are a number of big companies that do the "talk to an expert" thing, such as GLG. Might be worth checking them out. Good luck!
Btw, there are a number of big companies that do the "talk to an expert" thing, such as GLG. Might be worth checking them out. Good luck!
„open source developers work for pennies on the dollar. It is near impossible to make a living contributing to open source“
Literally thousands of developers at Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical, Intel, IBM, Microsoft, working full time, fully paid on upstream projects, would slightly disagree.
I’m not saying that every F/OSS developer makes a lot of money, but I oppose the notion that it is “near impossible” to do so.
[disclaimer: I work at Red Hat since 14 years as EMEA Evangelist]
Literally thousands of developers at Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical, Intel, IBM, Microsoft, working full time, fully paid on upstream projects, would slightly disagree.
I’m not saying that every F/OSS developer makes a lot of money, but I oppose the notion that it is “near impossible” to do so.
[disclaimer: I work at Red Hat since 14 years as EMEA Evangelist]
Getting into a position like that requires an incredible amount of luck. It's very much a "right time, right place, right project" sort of ordeal. It just isn't reality for the majority of developers.
Literally all of those are workers, while some would like to live a life of independent developers. I dont understand why some of you defend making “free” software which mainly benefits large corporations, while you work 9 to 5 jobs.
It is near impossible to make money off of oss as an indie. Working for someone else that makes billions off it and pays you near nothing, doesnt count.
It is near impossible to make money off of oss as an indie. Working for someone else that makes billions off it and pays you near nothing, doesnt count.
Alright, so how do I get hired part-time or full-time to work on my own pet FOSS projects?
Find a company that uses it and wants to see it continuing to be developed in a way that works for them, and ask for them to employ you.
So they get all the benefits of the project while i get a regular flat salary?
Why not just work as a regular programmer regardless of what i work on is FOSS instead and keep my own projects under my control for myself?
Why not just work as a regular programmer regardless of what i work on is FOSS instead and keep my own projects under my control for myself?
I think you misunderstand how this open source thing works. If a company pays you to work on an open source project the company doesn't get "control" of the project. The project is still open source and "controlled" by its maintainers. The company doesn't get to choose what features get included.
They may get to choose what features they let you work on during your paid hours, but it's still within the subset of features that are desired / allowed by the maintainers.
So, you still have control, you just get to spend more time working on it. If they want to take it in another direction that you don't want then either they can pay someone else to do it _or_ you can choose to fork your own project and have a version with the behaviors they want and maintain the original version with the behaviors you want.
If you've picked a company that's well aligned with the project then them paying you to work on the thing is generally the same as you working on what you want to work on, with maybe some features more highly prioritized that would otherwise be.
They may get to choose what features they let you work on during your paid hours, but it's still within the subset of features that are desired / allowed by the maintainers.
So, you still have control, you just get to spend more time working on it. If they want to take it in another direction that you don't want then either they can pay someone else to do it _or_ you can choose to fork your own project and have a version with the behaviors they want and maintain the original version with the behaviors you want.
If you've picked a company that's well aligned with the project then them paying you to work on the thing is generally the same as you working on what you want to work on, with maybe some features more highly prioritized that would otherwise be.
because working 5 hours a week on your pet project vs working 40 hours on it is a big difference.
if the project is under a Free Software license, who cares who actually owns the copyright? you can still use the code. sure, ownership does make some difference, but that's a tradeoff i am willing to make.
also, if you start the project on your own and get hired by a company later, they will only own the portion of the code that you wrote after you joined them. you still own everything you created before that point, so if they want to do anything with the code that violates the license, they still have to ask your permission, and if you don't agree, you can still jump ship at that point, and you are no worse off than before taking the job.
if the project is under a Free Software license, who cares who actually owns the copyright? you can still use the code. sure, ownership does make some difference, but that's a tradeoff i am willing to make.
also, if you start the project on your own and get hired by a company later, they will only own the portion of the code that you wrote after you joined them. you still own everything you created before that point, so if they want to do anything with the code that violates the license, they still have to ask your permission, and if you don't agree, you can still jump ship at that point, and you are no worse off than before taking the job.
[deleted]
Sure, you can do that! I was answering the person's question, in which they wanted to get paid for developing their FOSS.
The "i" in my comment doesn't refer to me specifically, it is like the "royal you" but for a single person (not sure if there is a name for it).
1% chance you can, and even if you, your “sponsor” will be earning far higher profits off of your work.
Sounds to me like a scrappy clone of Codementor.
I think the real way to equalize OSS software is to make it partially OSS ... maybe any company w/ < 10 mill profits it's FOSS, any company over that has to pay in man-hours (contributions) or $$ to use the product.
Amazon/FB/Microsoft and other Faang's could easily reproduce any oss software to meet their needs using their own staff...
Maybe even just have a github like site to host software and each organization pays based on their value, w/ startups/small companies under 10 million annual revenues essentially having free access.
Larger companies would pay a per employee fee, that fee would be divided up among all FOSS software that company uses. They could get some refunds for any contributions accepted to FOSS. It'd basically be like patreon for software in a semi-walled garden.
Small members could also 'opt-in' to pay $x per month that would also be divided up among other OSS projects. Either random, or they could pick by grouped projects or just pick their favorites to receive a % of their monthly donation.
I think the real way to equalize OSS software is to make it partially OSS ... maybe any company w/ < 10 mill profits it's FOSS, any company over that has to pay in man-hours (contributions) or $$ to use the product.
Amazon/FB/Microsoft and other Faang's could easily reproduce any oss software to meet their needs using their own staff...
Maybe even just have a github like site to host software and each organization pays based on their value, w/ startups/small companies under 10 million annual revenues essentially having free access.
Larger companies would pay a per employee fee, that fee would be divided up among all FOSS software that company uses. They could get some refunds for any contributions accepted to FOSS. It'd basically be like patreon for software in a semi-walled garden.
Small members could also 'opt-in' to pay $x per month that would also be divided up among other OSS projects. Either random, or they could pick by grouped projects or just pick their favorites to receive a % of their monthly donation.
> I think the real way to equalize OSS software is to make it partially OSS ... maybe any company w/ < 10 mill profits it's FOSS, any company over that has to pay in man-hours (contributions) or $$ to use the product.
A friendly reminder that it is Free as in Freedom, not Free as in Beer. Doing what you suggest is a good approach for Free Beer, not Freedom.
Qt has the perfect business model for OSS. Respect the LGPL license for Qt and get it for free without any extra restrictions. Or go straight for a commercial license. Plus they sell add-ons and other software and support around Qt.
And considering all the places where Qt is used, I would say they are very successful at it.
A friendly reminder that it is Free as in Freedom, not Free as in Beer. Doing what you suggest is a good approach for Free Beer, not Freedom.
Qt has the perfect business model for OSS. Respect the LGPL license for Qt and get it for free without any extra restrictions. Or go straight for a commercial license. Plus they sell add-ons and other software and support around Qt.
And considering all the places where Qt is used, I would say they are very successful at it.
> Qt has the perfect business model for OSS.
Except for that part where their business model incentivizes them to bloat the library towards what is actually paying (car and smart fridge dashboard UIs) instead of what most people would want Qt to focus on (desktop widgets - see pretty much every thread whenever a Qt release or news is posted).
> And considering all the places where Qt is used, I would say they are very successful at it.
Since we're talking in the context of money instead of popularity, 1000000 projects using the LGPL version of Qt for free doesn't make Qt successful, it only makes it popular.
Except for that part where their business model incentivizes them to bloat the library towards what is actually paying (car and smart fridge dashboard UIs) instead of what most people would want Qt to focus on (desktop widgets - see pretty much every thread whenever a Qt release or news is posted).
> And considering all the places where Qt is used, I would say they are very successful at it.
Since we're talking in the context of money instead of popularity, 1000000 projects using the LGPL version of Qt for free doesn't make Qt successful, it only makes it popular.
>Except for that part where their business model incentivizes them to bloat the library towards what is actually paying (car and smart fridge dashboard UIs)
That will happen to any project that takes any form of sponsorship money. People sponsoring will always want to prioritize their needs.
> instead of what most people would want Qt to focus on (desktop widgets - see pretty much every thread whenever a Qt release or news is posted).
KDE, with it's very successful suite of OSS, cross platform apps, Plasma Desktop and Plasma Mobile would like to disagree. You should remember that Qt is the only cross platform toolkit for desktops that is small, performant and actually works without compromises.
> Since we're talking in the context of money instead of popularity, 1000000 projects using the LGPL version of Qt for free doesn't make Qt successful, it only makes it popular.
Those 1000000 projects include Krita and Kdenlive, the successful and premiere apps in their categories that even give proprietary tools a run for their subscription money while being completely free and cross platform. KDE Plasma is the only fully featured independent DE that runs across Linux and BSD's.
Qt and it's business model is a success by all terms.
That will happen to any project that takes any form of sponsorship money. People sponsoring will always want to prioritize their needs.
> instead of what most people would want Qt to focus on (desktop widgets - see pretty much every thread whenever a Qt release or news is posted).
KDE, with it's very successful suite of OSS, cross platform apps, Plasma Desktop and Plasma Mobile would like to disagree. You should remember that Qt is the only cross platform toolkit for desktops that is small, performant and actually works without compromises.
> Since we're talking in the context of money instead of popularity, 1000000 projects using the LGPL version of Qt for free doesn't make Qt successful, it only makes it popular.
Those 1000000 projects include Krita and Kdenlive, the successful and premiere apps in their categories that even give proprietary tools a run for their subscription money while being completely free and cross platform. KDE Plasma is the only fully featured independent DE that runs across Linux and BSD's.
Qt and it's business model is a success by all terms.
> That will happen to any project that takes any form of sponsorship money. People sponsoring will always want to prioritize their needs.
Right, this is exactly what i wrote.
> KDE, with it's very successful suite of OSS, cross platform apps, Plasma Desktop and Plasma Mobile would like to disagree.
Disagree on what? They wouldn't like Qt developers to focus on desktop widgets?
Besides, KDE and its suite is only a small fraction of what Qt is used for. It acts as a nice cheerleader but Qt is used by a LOT more than just KDE.
> You should remember that Qt is the only cross platform toolkit for desktops that is small, performant and actually works without compromises.
That sounds like marketing buzzwords.
> Those 1000000 projects include Krita and Kdenlive, the successful and premiere apps in their categories that even give proprietary tools a run for their subscription money while being completely free and cross platform. KDE Plasma is the only fully featured independent DE that runs across Linux and BSD's.
How much of that money goes to Qt's developers? I mean, how do you go from what you wrote here to:
> Qt and it's business model is a success by all terms.
And last time i checked, the money Krita (i don't know about Kdenlive) gets is a pittance.
Right, this is exactly what i wrote.
> KDE, with it's very successful suite of OSS, cross platform apps, Plasma Desktop and Plasma Mobile would like to disagree.
Disagree on what? They wouldn't like Qt developers to focus on desktop widgets?
Besides, KDE and its suite is only a small fraction of what Qt is used for. It acts as a nice cheerleader but Qt is used by a LOT more than just KDE.
> You should remember that Qt is the only cross platform toolkit for desktops that is small, performant and actually works without compromises.
That sounds like marketing buzzwords.
> Those 1000000 projects include Krita and Kdenlive, the successful and premiere apps in their categories that even give proprietary tools a run for their subscription money while being completely free and cross platform. KDE Plasma is the only fully featured independent DE that runs across Linux and BSD's.
How much of that money goes to Qt's developers? I mean, how do you go from what you wrote here to:
> Qt and it's business model is a success by all terms.
And last time i checked, the money Krita (i don't know about Kdenlive) gets is a pittance.
I definitely like the model that's used by the Python foundation and the like -- respecting Freedom, but making profit through consultancy. That was what kind of inspired me to make Immutable Coffee.
> making profit through consultancy
This incentivizes making software that requires consultancy (or at best, disincentivizes fixing issues with the software that would lessen the income from consultancy).
Your profit should come from the software being the best it can be (not to be confused with having the most bloated feature checklist) by itself, not by anything surrounding it.
This incentivizes making software that requires consultancy (or at best, disincentivizes fixing issues with the software that would lessen the income from consultancy).
Your profit should come from the software being the best it can be (not to be confused with having the most bloated feature checklist) by itself, not by anything surrounding it.
And how do you suggest we pay devs to make the best free software they can make?
This would however also mean giving up on the core principles of free/opensource software and turning it into shareware(?). Why would I want to contribute to that software?
I think the patreon-like idea is great! Similarly to how netflix turned lots of people that previously watched movies for gratis on streaming sites into paying customers, making paying money for software easy and convenient should have a large impact.
The big question are who should handle the financials of this and how the money is then divided.
I think the patreon-like idea is great! Similarly to how netflix turned lots of people that previously watched movies for gratis on streaming sites into paying customers, making paying money for software easy and convenient should have a large impact.
The big question are who should handle the financials of this and how the money is then divided.
Never seen Codementor before -- but thanks for pointing it out to me.
I guess that in functionality the sites are similar, but hopefully the overarching goals of the project will bring them in different directions.
I guess that in functionality the sites are similar, but hopefully the overarching goals of the project will bring them in different directions.
Interesting idea.
It might be worth offering two pricing options: (1) Pay for private answers, (2) free/bounty open source answers.
Your concept seems to have some overlap with StackOverflow. A problem with StackOverflow is their content is licensed CC-BY-SA. That can make some answers dicey for companies to use. Publicly visible answers on your site might be more valuable than StackOverflow answers if you released them as CC0. CC0 answers could also be merged into the docs of the FOSS projects. Having those answers on your site should drive more search traffic to you, bringing more leads for paid private Q&A.
On the expert side of what you’re doing... if you can streamline the payment process & generate a 1099 for taxes (like Lyft-style companies do) that might remove some overhead for experts & get them interested.
It might be worth offering two pricing options: (1) Pay for private answers, (2) free/bounty open source answers.
Your concept seems to have some overlap with StackOverflow. A problem with StackOverflow is their content is licensed CC-BY-SA. That can make some answers dicey for companies to use. Publicly visible answers on your site might be more valuable than StackOverflow answers if you released them as CC0. CC0 answers could also be merged into the docs of the FOSS projects. Having those answers on your site should drive more search traffic to you, bringing more leads for paid private Q&A.
On the expert side of what you’re doing... if you can streamline the payment process & generate a 1099 for taxes (like Lyft-style companies do) that might remove some overhead for experts & get them interested.
Payment process definitely isn't streamlined right now (the button to cash out just sends me an email), but I am planning on paying through a 1099, if that makes things any easier.
To me, what you’re sort of doing is flipping the StackOverflow model around so that the authors share in the profits. That’s an interesting concept to experiment with. I wonder if “Teachers Pay Teachers” might be a company for you to benchmark?
Side note... It’s not often we see HN front page stories from Tucson, AZ & that’s awesome!
Side note... It’s not often we see HN front page stories from Tucson, AZ & that’s awesome!
I think that there's a large way that Immutable Coffee differs from Stack Overflow, and that's in the fact that Immutable Coffee is:
* Private (answers don't circulate around the internet! that's important because of how quickly answers on stack overflow become invalidated)
and * Immediate & one-on-one (waiting for answers/responses in a comment chain on Stack Overflow is a super frustrating experience!)
And thank you! Lots of love for Tuscon. Bear down!
* Private (answers don't circulate around the internet! that's important because of how quickly answers on stack overflow become invalidated)
and * Immediate & one-on-one (waiting for answers/responses in a comment chain on Stack Overflow is a super frustrating experience!)
And thank you! Lots of love for Tuscon. Bear down!
I feel like the easiest way to fund open source is to offer dual licensing and somehow charge businesses. There have been many that have done this and it seems to work well, most notably IMO is mperham with Sidekiq, but there are many others. Open source developers are too timid of charging for their code.
Relying on donations seems like a bad move, business-wise, because I'd guess (no data to back this up, just gut feeling) that most donations will come from individuals and not busineses, yet the businesses are the ones making money off of your code.
Relying on donations seems like a bad move, business-wise, because I'd guess (no data to back this up, just gut feeling) that most donations will come from individuals and not busineses, yet the businesses are the ones making money off of your code.
I recommend visiting http://oss.fund
Bountysource is another interesting platform in this vein.
+1 to that -- that seems like a really cool project!
From what you are posting here it sounds like you have not done much market research on the field you are entering.
You should consider redesigning the website colors to spare visitors' eyes. I mean, the posted link opens a page with white text on black background, but clicking on the "immutable coffee" link takes to a page with black text on white background. I was viewing in a brightly lit room yet was severely jolted, can only imagine the fate of those viewing in dimly lit room or in the dark.
I am also taking a look at this problem from an analytics point of view (python, pandas, jupyter, dask, etc). My thinking so far is that it would make a lot of sense to offer 1:1 support but also services around a reference architecture made of those components. Then I would pay a cut like 10-20% to Numfocus which seems to be backing a lot of this ecosystem.
Not sure I understand what you're saying -- are you suggesting that Immutable Coffee should expand the topics that it's currently offering? Ideally, I'd like to, but we currently just don't have the manpower to do that.
Thanks for your reply. Open source is great but most of the time you need to put together a solution which requires the orchestration of multiple open source libraries and solutions. For instance, with analytics you need Python, Pandas, Dask, SQLAlchemy, Jupyter etc.. So packaging a solution (i.e. a docker image) and then selling certification, support and training should be valuable and a % of the money could go to no profit organizations that maintain those libraries. This is only my personal experience and I am open to discuss it more via email if it helps. I could definitely see the value of a service like yours to get to know companies that need consulting in the analytics space, but I think for now you are not focusing into any specific open source industry.
One way to test whether people will buy consulting in analytics might be to sign up as an “analytics expert” on Instant Coffee and get leads from the OP.
Then Instant Coffee is covering a chunk of the payment & client acquisition overhead you’d otherwise need to duplicate.
Then Instant Coffee is covering a chunk of the payment & client acquisition overhead you’d otherwise need to duplicate.
Definitely wouldn't mind adding analytics as a topic on the website.
Interesting idea, and seemingly not dissimilar to https://lyfevest.io, although Lyfevest has an all-you-can-eat subscription for asking questions, and the platform seemingly vets the experts automatically in some way (e.g. looking at the expert's public contributions).
Sent you an email, very curious about an idea I had for flipping FOSS on its head a little
I'm excited to check it out. I wish there was an easy login with GitHub or Google instead of creating yet another password.
Interesting point-of-view. I never use Github/Google/whatever to sign up with another website in an effort to minimise their cross-site tracking. In fact if a site only offers FB/Goog/Github sign-in and lacks their own sign-in identity management, I simply refuse to use it at all and go elsewhere. (And there's always an 'elsewhere'!)
Sorry about that! Wasn't the first time I've heard this suggestion -- I'll definitely look into supporting this.
Your site says it’s written in Ruby. Check out the OmniAuth gem for adding login providers. It’s probably worth a quick look at similar gems before choosing this one.
https://github.com/omniauth/omniauth
https://github.com/omniauth/omniauth
How do you plan to vet experts?
I've been doing it manually: looking at resumes, code samples, and asking sample questions to judge for myself. Not sure there's any automated way to do that that will work any better.
My understanding was that you would vet open source contributors so they can support their own stuff. So looking at GitHub, commits, etc.
Otherwise your platform is really a way for random people to get money (nothing wrong with that) while the actual maintainers are busy writing code, reviewing tickets, etc.
I know monetizing open source is terribly difficult so I don't want to sound too negative.
Otherwise your platform is really a way for random people to get money (nothing wrong with that) while the actual maintainers are busy writing code, reviewing tickets, etc.
I know monetizing open source is terribly difficult so I don't want to sound too negative.
> My understanding was that you would vet open source contributors so they can support their own stuff. So looking at GitHub, commits, etc
Ideally, this is the plan.
Ideally, this is the plan.
You’ll also have the option to use customer feedback, if you think that makes sense.
Take a look at Lyft’s post-ride survey. Rate your ride, plus a set of chips that let people express what stood out about the driver, plus a comment field. Very simple & quick to complete.
Take a look at Lyft’s post-ride survey. Rate your ride, plus a set of chips that let people express what stood out about the driver, plus a comment field. Very simple & quick to complete.
Right now, the system works on a black and white "I was satisfied with this answer"/"I wasn't satisfied with this answer". If too many users note that they were continually unsatisfied with a particular answerer's answers, then I'm planning on handling that issue myself.
At first glance, your product feels unrelated to this. It seems like a Stack Overflow replacement that's worse for posterity (read: googlers) because chats are private. It also feels like a side-gig for open source developers, asking them to basically freelance to fund their open source projects, which I don't think is how that should work.
I think you'd have more luck as a platform for paid support licenses for open source software. Bootstrapping a support license program is a Big Deal for independent open source developers who don't want more administrative work. But this feels like a miss on that front. Happy to confer more.
> Minus server costs and wages, all of the money processed through Immutable Coffee will go directly back to the developers and experts answering questions for the community.
You might want to look into forming a nonprofit, as this is almost exactly what it is (minus ownership stakes). If you're a nonprofit people don't have to trust sentences like this, as it's baked into your existence.