Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd. finally announced

Eben Upton responded to my question "why were you terminated as a director of the Raspberry Pi Foundation?" here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4148983&cid=44722739

I like the part about resigning in order to separate the control of the two entities,

"though I continue to run the Foundation on a day-to-day basis".  I think the whole point

of requiring charities to publicly declare their trustees is so that the public is clear about

who is running the charity on a day-to-day basis.

I wonder what title he may have used since resigning when signing RPF contracts, if any?

Note to UK based entrepreneurs looking to sell *whatever*:

1) Start a charitable foundation and mumble something worthy but non-specific about "education".

2) Reap the benefits of free positive publicity, enjoy extra leverage with manufacturing partners who might be a bit more ruthless with non-charities and exploit goodwill from customers who may be less patient if it wasn't all for "a good cause".

3) Sell your consumer grade hardware to allcomers and let the educational thing quietly fade from the public consciousness. That's ok - you never actually made any promises about education anyway. All you did was let people make assumptions.

4) Laugh all the way to the bank, chortle at the UK taxpayers who have subsidised your venture and thumb your nose at competitors over whom you have gained a commercial advantage by your exploitation of your charitable status. Oh, don't forget to raise a glass to legitimate charities everywhere, because you've devalued their efforts and possibly damaged the whole principle of charitable donation.

It sucks. At least Bill Gates formed a charitable foundation in order to give away a fortune.

Jonathan Garrish wrote: (with my ammendments in bold)

 

3) Sell hardware uncertified for residential use to allcomers

Fixed that for you.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

Jonathan Garrish wrote: (with my ammendments in bold)

 

3) Sell hardware uncertified for residential use to allcomers

Fixed that for you.

Game, set and match.

If it wasn't so close to the (apparent) truth, it would be funny.

The Foundation seem to use the Education motto as and when they like, happy to go on about it endlessly on the blog, but being at the sharp end (i'm off to a school this afternoon) I can find nothing frm the Foundation to help with what i'm doing. More than a year after the launch, and there is precisely the same as when it was launched.

Steve

Steve Read wrote:

 

The Foundation seem to use the Education motto as and when they like, happy to go on about it endlessly on the blog, but being at the sharp end (i'm off to a school this afternoon) I can find nothing frm the Foundation to help with what i'm doing. More than a year after the launch, and there is precisely the same as when it was launched.

 

Steve

That's where you’re wrong!! 

They have helped educate children, students and even older people.  Maybe not directly but they have provided a way that people can easily program whatever they want.  How many different people have you seen on the internet who have started programming and made amazing stuff thanks to the Raspberry Pi (and the Foundation who worked on the Pi for 6 years without any profit)? 

The fact that they may not have produced the guides and projects doesn’t matter.  They still have and do endorse these projects and assist in any way possible.

And to say that they are using their identity as a ‘Foundation’ as a scam is just wrong.

And to say that they are using their identity as a ‘Foundation’ as a scam is just wrong.

the Foundation who worked on the Pi for 6 years without any profit)?

What exactly do you think the Foundation worked on for 6 years?

Initially we were led to believe that the Foundation slaved away for 6 years

developing a sequence of prototypes, such as the one shown in May 2011

that looks a lot like a Roku.  That turned out not to be a Foundation-developed

prototype at all.  It turned out to be a Broadcom-developed development board

called MicroDB (Micro Development Board).  That was followed by the

Broadcom-developed and manufactured "Alpha" board.  Do you think the

Foundation was slaving away while Eben was working on his MBA?

We have been told that the Foundation has been slaving away for the past

year on various RPi developments, only to find out recently that it was actually

the for-profit RPi Trading subsidiary that was doing the development, and that

the purpose of these developments was not in any way limited to education.

You say they have worked for 6 years without any profit.  How do you know what

sort of income and expenditures the for-profit subsidiary has?  Certainly they have

not published any financial information. 

They have pointed out the restrictions that apply to charities with regard to trustees

and/or spouses taking any salary.  But Eben resigned his Foundation trustee position in Dec 2012.

Do you think the for-profit subsidiary has the same restrictions?

Cian Byrne wrote:

 

 

They have helped educate children, students and even older people.  Maybe not directly but they have provided a way that people can easily program whatever they want.  How many different people have you seen on the internet who have started programming and made amazing stuff thanks to the Raspberry Pi (and the Foundation who worked on the Pi for 6 years without any profit)? 

 

The fact that they may not have produced the guides and projects doesn’t matter.  They still have and do endorse these projects and assist in any way possible.

 

And to say that they are using their identity as a ‘Foundation’ as a scam is just wrong.

 

 

And to say that they are using their identity as a ‘Foundation’ as a scam is just wrong.

First of all, i'd like to state that nowhere did I say they were using the 'Foundation' tag as a scam.

They have made a single board computer, with the stated aim of improving the level of computer education in the UK. The first part is undeniable, the second part I'm not so sure of. When they launched, they were in a field of one. If they had Education as a target, they could have used that to get into schools early, with a tie in to current curriculum. With the way these things work, even if better competition had come along, they could have had the education market sewn up. Now, with the BBB and others coming into the market, that opportunity is lost forever. My employer is now involved with three schools and none of those schools have bought any Ras pi's themselves, or really know anything about them over and above what they may have learnt from sites like the BBC when they get yet another bit of favourable, education based coverage. Yes, they have sold 1 million plus units, but I bet very few of those, if any, have ben bought by education authorities.

Any computer will allow you to 'program whatever you want' - this is not an individual trait to the Pi. I'm in the UK and I've bought (and use) laptops for around £60, which is getting close to the cost of a pi, depending on how much other kit you have to buy to make it a complete system. However, on the Foundation forum you'd think that there was no other option. Wanting to learn is a state of mind, yes the pi helps that, but if you have that inclination, you will find a way.

They will be bound to 'endorse' everyone else's work however, as that would seem to show how great a tool the pi is and how much it is being used to educate. It isn't - all of the stuff being done with the pi is by hobbyists, engineers et al , people with an already technical bent just using this as a tool to achieve a goal. If it hadn't been the pi, it would have been an arduino or one of the beagle series. The people doing interesting stuff deserve recognition themselves, not via the Foundation. Why they can't just come out and say 'Hey, we made a neat device that you hackers and engineers are going to love!' is beyond me, as it is a lot closer to the truth and there is no shame in that !

They need to come down out of their Ivory towers in Cambridge and visit a few inner city schools to see how far the educational aims have really penetrated.

Steve

They need to come down out of their Ivory towers in Cambridge and visit a few inner city schools to see how far the educational aims have really penetrated.

Actually, I think they would be the first to tell you that their educational release hasn't

been released, so no surprise they haven't penetrated education, and that the engineering,

manufacturing, and sales of the RPi has been handed off from the Foundation to a for-profit

subsidiary corporation that does not have education as the focus of its charter, as far as we know. 

They are working on areas where they have an advantage over BBB, such as XBMC,

to take advantage of the video capabilities.  Eben's recent Maker Faire talk mentioned

expanding out of their current niche into areas like ease-of-use for techno-phobic grandparents.

Pete Lomas wrote the opinion piece at about the time the corporate subsidiary was formed

in Sept 2012 that said they were selling out to sell a lot.  It wasn't clear at the time what that

was all about, but I think it's clear now.

What exactly do you think the Foundation worked on for 6 years?

Probably the organisation of many different people and large companies that were required to build the Raspberry Pi.  You know it is very difficult to get the support to build something from Broadcom or any other large Technology Businesses.

Do you think the Foundation was slaving away while Eben was working on his MBA?

I believe that the 'Foundation' at this stage was just himself, his wife (Liz) and two or three others.  I am also lead to believe that the work on the Raspberry Pi Project was periodic and cut into each individual's spare time.  So to answer your question... yes Eben would still be doing his MBA.

We have been told that the Foundation has been slaving away for the past year on various RPi developments, only to find out recently that it was actually

the for-profit RPi Trading subsidiary that was doing the development, and that the purpose of these developments was not in any way limited to education.

* purpose of these developments was not in any way limited to education.

So what?  The foundation's main focus is Education but they also have to look at other issues that may be related to the construction of the device itself.

You say they have worked for 6 years without any profit.  How do you know what

sort of income and expenditures the for-profit subsidiary has?  Certainly they have

not published any financial information.

No Financial Information because they have not been selling a product.  Sure they have made a bit of money but they do not have to disclose this information to the public.  They are a private organisation.  If they were a public company with many people owning it, it would be a different story.

So stop getting up in arms about the Foundation spliting into two divisions.  It is for the better anyway.    It allows them to employ people to do actual work rather than people having to do all the work ‘in their spare time’ as @JamesH likes to through around so often as an excuse for not fixing code.

PS: Have not read the last two posts and will do now!

What exactly do you think the Foundation worked on for 6 years?

Probably the organisation of many different people and large companies that were required to build the Raspberry Pi.  You know it is very difficult to get the support to build something from Broadcom or any other large Technology Businesses.

Do you think the Foundation was slaving away while Eben was working on his MBA?

I believe that the 'Foundation' at this stage was just himself, his wife (Liz) and two or three others.  I am also lead to believe that the work on the Raspberry Pi Project was periodic and cut into each individual's spare time.  So to answer your question... yes Eben would still be doing his MBA.

We have been told that the Foundation has been slaving away for the past year on various RPi developments, only to find out recently that it was actually

the for-profit RPi Trading subsidiary that was doing the development, and that the purpose of these developments was not in any way limited to education.

* purpose of these developments was not in any way limited to education.

So what?  The foundation's main focus is Education but they also have to look at other issues that may be related to the construction of the device itself.

You say they have worked for 6 years without any profit.  How do you know what

sort of income and expenditures the for-profit subsidiary has?  Certainly they have

not published any financial information.

No Financial Information because they have not been selling a product.  Sure they have made a bit of money but they do not have to disclose this information to the public.  They are a private organisation.  If they were a public company with many people owning it, it would be a different story.

So stop getting up in arms about the Foundation spliting into two divisions.  It is for the better anyway.    It allows them to employ people to do actual work rather than people having to do all the work ‘in their spare time’ as @JamesH likes to through around so often as an excuse for not fixing code.

PS: Have not read the last two posts and will do now!

So stop getting up in arms about the Foundation spliting into two divisions.  It is for the better anyway.    It allows them to employ people to do actual work rather than people having to do all the work ‘in their spare time’ as @JamesH likes to through around so often as an excuse for not fixing code.

Nobody is getting up in arms about the Foundation splitting into two divisions. 

People are getting up in arms about the formation of a for-profit company without

making it clear what they are doing, for over a year, while claiming and allowing others

on their website to claim that it's all about charity and education, and claiming that they are mostly

unpaid volunteers because charities have strict rules prohibiting paying trustees and spouses.

It would be one thing if when they split they had announced that the RPi is no longer

being developed, made, and sold by an educational charity solely for educational purposes,

but instead is being developed, made, and sold by a for-profit subsidiary company for

more general purposes that may have little to do with education.  But even as recently

as Eben's LinuxCon and Maker Faire talks a few weeks ago, he was introduced as

executive director of a charity, a position he resigned in Dec 2012, with no mention

of the Trading company that he actually is the CEO of.

Every project needs a front man/woman,,, so Eben is ok.   He is a human and seems to have good morals about a project that he knows takes hundreds if not thousands of good people.  Leave it alone,,, let the R-Pi project grow and grow !!

Chuck smith

I believe all charitable organizations have to also make money on the side in some form of legality.  It only makes sense,  you have to bring in money to accomplish certain things,,, charity may not cut it    The laws make it difficult,, and lawyers make it almost impossible,,, but there has to be a median.  What is the big problem if some money is made for future developments ??    If 80 percent is all charity,  then i would still call it a charitable organization,,, not worth splitting hairs about.

Chuck Smith

Most charities rely on donations.  Some charities have separate for-profit subsidiaries that

conduct trading, the profits of which go to the charity.  But in those cases, there is a very

clear separation between the charity's activities and those of the for-profit subsidiary, and

the for-profit trading is not done under the banner or auspices of the charity.

In contrast, the RPi trading for the past year has been done under the banner of the charity,

and very few people had even the slightest inkling that there was any for-profit company involved.

What is the big problem if some money is made for future developments ??

There is no problem whatsoever of a for-profit company operating as a subsidiary of a charity

and donating its profits to the charity, provided of course that it is clear that that's what's going on.

Coder27 :  I imagine it gets very sticky on the legal side of things,,, especially with taxes and such,,,  And if one bad apple in the bushel breaks a law,, all the other apples fall with him.  I understand

coder27 wrote:

 

So stop getting up in arms about the Foundation spliting into two divisions.  It is for the better anyway.    It allows them to employ people to do actual work rather than people having to do all the work ‘in their spare time’ as @JamesH likes to through around so often as an excuse for not fixing code.

Nobody is getting up in arms about the Foundation splitting into two divisions. 

People are getting up in arms about the formation of a for-profit company without

making it clear what they are doing, for over a year, while claiming and allowing others

on their website to claim that it's all about charity and education, and claiming that they are mostly

unpaid volunteers because charities have strict rules prohibiting paying trustees and spouses.

Who are you worried about getting paid?  All those voluntaries who have been working so hard on the Raspberry Pi?  That seems a bit harsh considering that some of them spend a high percentage of their day working on documentation, software and much to your disbelieve Education releases for schools including promoting programming in schools.

BTW ‘splitting into two divisions’ has the same meaning as ‘formation of for-profit company’.

Who are you worried about getting paid?

BTW ‘splitting into two divisions’ has the same meaning as ‘formation of for-profit company’.

The concern isn't that workers aren't getting paid.  Nor is the concern that the Foundation has been split.

The concern is the lack of announcement of significant changes to the status quo, particularly when

there has been such an extensive prior emphasis and reliance on "we're all volunteers" and "we're a charity"

and "we're all about education".

The concern is the lack of announcement of significant changes to the status quo, particularly when

there has been such an extensive prior emphasis and reliance on "we're all volunteers" and "we're a charity"

and "we're all about education".

Refer to previous post.