Not anybody. The claim was that there’s no difference between individual nonprofit types in terms of trademarking abilities: the Rust trademark policy could just as easily exist under a (c)(3).
(c)(3)s serve the public interest; (c)(6)s serve the interests of their members. But this doesn’t imply anything about a management class; it’s just a simpler and less fraught way to achieve tax-exempt status for a software community, especially one that was originally smaller.
Comments
I don't think anybody can impose trademark restrictions the way the Rust Foundation was planing to...
But anyway, the details of how a non-profit is created have a lot of impact on the incentives for their managers.
Not anybody. The claim was that there’s no difference between individual nonprofit types in terms of trademarking abilities: the Rust trademark policy could just as easily exist under a (c)(3).
(c)(3)s serve the public interest; (c)(6)s serve the interests of their members. But this doesn’t imply anything about a management class; it’s just a simpler and less fraught way to achieve tax-exempt status for a software community, especially one that was originally smaller.