The quotes from IRS shot that this is not a random rejection, rather a whole policy with thought-out basis. Somebody took time to ridicule open source in legalese.
Two options from the paranoid:
Somebody influences IRS to stifle open source? Who may that be?
IRS thinks they can make enough wool by shaving pigs? That's desperate.
They should better figure out how to dismember Apple than do what they do. It's a disgrace.
> The quotes from IRS shot that this is not a random rejection, rather a whole policy with thought-out basis. Somebody took time to ridicule open source in legalese.
Its not "ridiculing". Its applying the law and existing precedent to the specific facts presented by Yorba. It may be wrong, but reading the whole letter it seems like its more that Yorba did a poor job at explaining how it met the 501(c)(3) requirements, including when responding to specific inquiries by the IRS.[1]
(It'd be interesting to get the application and other documents and compare them to those of, e.g., the Apache Software Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, and other open-source entities that have gotten 501(c)(3) status and see if its really that the IRS decision here is out of line with other ones in similar areas or if its just Yorba's documentation and explanations that are the issue.)
non-crazy theory: much like US immigration, this is someone who's being allowed to have a bee up his bonnet about 'those silicon valley types' and is taking it out institutionally. Appealing this would be a charitable act in and of itself, since it would create precedent that other OSS groups could use too.
Two options from the paranoid:
Somebody influences IRS to stifle open source? Who may that be?
IRS thinks they can make enough wool by shaving pigs? That's desperate.
They should better figure out how to dismember Apple than do what they do. It's a disgrace.