Re: [openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
Hi Bhaskar! Long time no chat! 501(c)3 would be a valid approach. When we incorporated www.ifossf.org, we went this route. You should also check the states that offer more conducive environments for nonprofit incorporation. The State of Michigan is a good option. An attorney is must and a strategy to make the community and various donor foundations around the US is also much needed in the initial startup. Good luck all! Great initiative and do let me know if I can be a part of it! On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, K.S. Bhaskar wrote: > > > I'll second that. There are (at least) two types of non-profit > organizations in the US: those incorporated under section 501(c)(3) and > 501(c)(6). Before you incorporate, do check which with an attorney as > to which is best for your needs. There certainly is a need in the FOSS > health space for both types. > > Regards > -- Bhaskar > > On 05/07/2009 03:03 AM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: >> Fred, >> >> From your description this sounds very much like a trade association >> not a 501 c 3 as your advertised objective on the website. How far are >> you in the "midst" of applying for 501 c 3... are you working through a >> good not for profit lawyer? >> >> Joseph > > -- Regards. -- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
Re: [openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
We will be doing that too ;) -FT On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM, K.S. Bhaskar wrote: > > Thanks, Fred. Your thinking makes sense. But I am a geek wannabe, not > a lawyer. My advice is just to get good advice. > > Regards > -- Bhaskar > > On 05/07/2009 11:07 AM, fred trotter wrote: >> One of the primary purposes of LibertyMSF will be to work on orphan >> projects like written documentation or code documentation, and we want >> to be able to apply for grants and such. We also want to be able to >> accept donations directly from individuals. For this reason we will be >> going 501c3 >> >> The Health IT Public Utility Act of 2009 is unique because I had >> honestly thought that direct 'lobbying' (as in trying to influence the >> passing of legislation) would be outside our mission statement. >> However, 501c3 can do limited lobbying and the kinds of lobbying that >> we plan to do for this bill and bills like it are essentially >> costless, and well within the limitations of what a 501c3 is allowed >> to do. (IANAL etc etc) >> >> There will so rarely be an actual 'bill' that comes up, that I do not >> think we will spend much time on this. I hope that LibertyMSF will >> become more regularly involved in policy papers rather than directly >> active on legislation. >> >> As for a trade association, (or 501c6) it is my limited understanding >> that they have to survive on the dues of its members. The problem with >> that is that any organization that hopes to represent our community >> must reconcile the fact that what is in the companies best interests >> is not always the same thing as the interests of the individuals in >> the community. If LibertyMSF were limited to representing just >> corporate members, we would eventually become beholden to only 50% of >> the relevant interests. Again, the proprietary EHR industry has the >> glut of funds needed to run several different organizations, our >> community simply does not. For this reason we will be following the >> 'patron' model that the Free Software Foundation uses. >> >> Of course, as we move forward we are open to changing course on issues >> like this, but for now, I wanted to explain our initial thinking. Does >> this make sense? >> >> -FT > > _ > > The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. > If you are not the > intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do > not disclose, > distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender > immediately. In addition, > please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to > archiving and review by > persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. > _ > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ > http://groups.google.com/group/Hardhats > To unsubscribe, send email to hardhats-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
Thanks, Fred. Your thinking makes sense. But I am a geek wannabe, not a lawyer. My advice is just to get good advice. Regards -- Bhaskar On 05/07/2009 11:07 AM, fred trotter wrote: > One of the primary purposes of LibertyMSF will be to work on orphan > projects like written documentation or code documentation, and we want > to be able to apply for grants and such. We also want to be able to > accept donations directly from individuals. For this reason we will be > going 501c3 > > The Health IT Public Utility Act of 2009 is unique because I had > honestly thought that direct 'lobbying' (as in trying to influence the > passing of legislation) would be outside our mission statement. > However, 501c3 can do limited lobbying and the kinds of lobbying that > we plan to do for this bill and bills like it are essentially > costless, and well within the limitations of what a 501c3 is allowed > to do. (IANAL etc etc) > > There will so rarely be an actual 'bill' that comes up, that I do not > think we will spend much time on this. I hope that LibertyMSF will > become more regularly involved in policy papers rather than directly > active on legislation. > > As for a trade association, (or 501c6) it is my limited understanding > that they have to survive on the dues of its members. The problem with > that is that any organization that hopes to represent our community > must reconcile the fact that what is in the companies best interests > is not always the same thing as the interests of the individuals in > the community. If LibertyMSF were limited to representing just > corporate members, we would eventually become beholden to only 50% of > the relevant interests. Again, the proprietary EHR industry has the > glut of funds needed to run several different organizations, our > community simply does not. For this reason we will be following the > 'patron' model that the Free Software Foundation uses. > > Of course, as we move forward we are open to changing course on issues > like this, but for now, I wanted to explain our initial thinking. Does > this make sense? > > -FT _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. _
Re: [openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
One of the primary purposes of LibertyMSF will be to work on orphan projects like written documentation or code documentation, and we want to be able to apply for grants and such. We also want to be able to accept donations directly from individuals. For this reason we will be going 501c3 The Health IT Public Utility Act of 2009 is unique because I had honestly thought that direct 'lobbying' (as in trying to influence the passing of legislation) would be outside our mission statement. However, 501c3 can do limited lobbying and the kinds of lobbying that we plan to do for this bill and bills like it are essentially costless, and well within the limitations of what a 501c3 is allowed to do. (IANAL etc etc) There will so rarely be an actual 'bill' that comes up, that I do not think we will spend much time on this. I hope that LibertyMSF will become more regularly involved in policy papers rather than directly active on legislation. As for a trade association, (or 501c6) it is my limited understanding that they have to survive on the dues of its members. The problem with that is that any organization that hopes to represent our community must reconcile the fact that what is in the companies best interests is not always the same thing as the interests of the individuals in the community. If LibertyMSF were limited to representing just corporate members, we would eventually become beholden to only 50% of the relevant interests. Again, the proprietary EHR industry has the glut of funds needed to run several different organizations, our community simply does not. For this reason we will be following the 'patron' model that the Free Software Foundation uses. Of course, as we move forward we are open to changing course on issues like this, but for now, I wanted to explain our initial thinking. Does this make sense? -FT On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:10 AM, K.S. Bhaskar wrote: > I'll second that. There are (at least) two types of non-profit > organizations in the US: those incorporated under section 501(c)(3) and > 501(c)(6). Before you incorporate, do check which with an attorney as > to which is best for your needs. There certainly is a need in the FOSS > health space for both types. > > Regards > -- Bhaskar > > On 05/07/2009 03:03 AM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: >> Fred, >> >> From your description this sounds very much like a trade association >> not a 501 c 3 as your advertised objective on the website. How far are >> you in the "midst" of applying for 501 c 3... are you working through a >> good not for profit lawyer? >> >> Joseph > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
I'll second that. There are (at least) two types of non-profit organizations in the US: those incorporated under section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6). Before you incorporate, do check which with an attorney as to which is best for your needs. There certainly is a need in the FOSS health space for both types. Regards -- Bhaskar On 05/07/2009 03:03 AM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: > Fred, > > From your description this sounds very much like a trade association > not a 501 c 3 as your advertised objective on the website. How far are > you in the "midst" of applying for 501 c 3... are you working through a > good not for profit lawyer? > > Joseph
