Is this real or spam

[Elliot Lee]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:

> Does/Must substantial support always mean money?

Not in general, but in this case I was writing, in the context of money,
about IRS rules that define exactly what substantial support means. If you
want more info, google for 'public support test irs'.

> What about those who have invested their time and efforts into testing,
> using, et al, etc. ?

They rock! I am not saying that people have to donate. It's ok to tell me
"go away and die" (like someone actually did in response to my e-mail)  I
just need to understand what everyone thinks so I can represent your views
in discussions with people such as lawyers who do not read fedora-list :)

> If it does mean money -- does Red Hat have the mnost to gain from the OS
> public at large efforts?  Would Red Hat not be a substantial supporter?  
> I mean -- isn't the over all goal of the FC project to become a testing
> ground for best of breed projects to make it into RHEL?

Red Hat would be very likely to be a substantial supporter, and that is
exactly the problem if the Fedora Foundation is a 501(c)(3). The IRS would
not allow the FF to have 501(c)(3) status if all its donations were coming
from one big contributor such as Red Hat.

Anyways...
-- Elliot
Red Hat Summit Nashville (May 30 - June 2, 2006)
http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/