Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: [DUS expenses]
> Ok. I certainly wouldn't call "items for sale" a case of "spending on
> itself", though; and at least in the US, I suspect these expenses might
> be accounted for in a somewhat different fashion than the breakdown
> given above. (But perhaps someone with more accounting experience than
> I could check me on that.)
In the UK, they'd probably appear differently on a balance sheet too.
Are you looking at the accounts for information, or to fill out a
form, though?
[...]
> Well, looking through <http://www.charity-commision.gov.uk/>, I can't
> actually find anything that spells out how the UK decides whether a
> stated object is charitable, but I also definitely don't see anything in
> their example objects that would cover SPI's charter. Education is one
> of SPI's stated objectives, yes, but advocacy is also, and it's my
> impression that advocacy is off-limits for UK charities.
Bluntly: why does that impression matter? I've encountered many
prejudices about charities, some of which are incorrect.
There is a rather fuzzy "benefit of the community"
charity heading, which is often under review. They also
change what counts as "political" (which isn't allowed for
charities). Explicitly trying to support or defeat legislation
seems clearly political, but more general direction of society
to be helpful (or charitable?) is sometimes allowed.
The only way to decide for sure seems to be to apply to the
commissioners, and a court if necessary beyond that. In many
circumstances, law says groups must apply for a decision,
but DUS won't and I'm not sure whether the call reported in
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-uk/2005-August/010548.html
really happened or was a joke like much of the rest of that mail.
Best wishes,
--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Reply to: