I wish it was a public company so we can see how they'll be spending that money. I hope a lot of it goes into bettering Firefox and Thunderbird.

I wonder how much they made in 2006... Must be at least $90 million, surely?

Who cares if they make money.. my god.. as if thats a crime now.... Anyone that b****es at Mozilla for making money probably still wears a name tag to work.

And why exactly is it that wearing a name tag to work is bad? .... :)

I personally hope that Mozilla makes more money than Microsoft. Being a non-profit organization, as described in the comments below, all that money has to go back to the users at one point or another through free products, services or whatever ...
I also like Firefox but, unfortunately, every time I get used to a theme or extension I like, it stops getting developped and eventually becomes not compatible with the latest version of Firefox ... Just my luck, I guess. It's getting to a point where I'm considering switching back to Maxthon
"No ... I mustn't .... go back .... Use the force, Luke ..."

(And the answer is "No, ladylust, I don't wear a name tag to work, but I'm sure thinking about having one custom made for me :P")

And why exactly is it that wearing a name tag to work is bad?

Nametag = RFID v0.01 :p

Non-profit does not mean that the organization does not make a profit. I work at a non-profit hospital and all money made goes back to providing services at some point. There are no specific persons or share holders that take home a chunk of the earnings.

I thought only last week, the Mozilla crew were complaining about how they disliked google, and the google placed services in results..

Go Mozilla! Market competition is most always good for the end user...

"Mozilla Revenue Grows from Searches"

Wait--I thought Mozilla was non-profit?

Man, I really am confused about this now...

I think you're confused about what a non-profit company is. A non-profit's goal isn't necessarily to generate some large profit as most corporations might. However, non-profit companies still have to generate revenue in order to stay afloat. At the very least, they need to break even. Generating excess profit allows the company the ability to s*** money into other areas of service, where there is an expectation of losing money.

An example of this, relevant to Mozilla, is that they give away a browser (and the download bandwidth) for free to end-users. When was the last time you were charged for either? By generating revenue in other areas, Mozilla is able to continue giving away these items at no charge to you.

(Disclaimer: I've worked for non-profits for years)

Theres a Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation.. Thats how it makes its money..

I am one of the chairmen of a non-profit organization, (used for community outreach, if you must know) so I know a little bit about what they are and how they (should) operate.

Luckily, the short answer just above yours is the answer to my question. If you make NET PROFIT (if you say so, ifyousayso) in your non-profit organisation, there is a serious legal problem there (tax evasion?). Most non-profit orgs of this sort have non-taxable income only (e.g., gifts, personal assets xfered from taxable accounts, etc.), so apparently you're missing something about your non-profit employers.

Since Mozilla Corp. and Mozilla Foundation are two separate groups, one makes the money and gives it to the other non-profit one, which is perfectly legal and explains how they can make money and be non-profit.

Very educational thread there...thanks!

Apparently, your claim to know "a little bit" is pretty accurate. It's not illegal for a non-profit to post a profit; you've completely fabricated that. Or are you somehow mistakenly thinking that there is only one definition of a non-profit?

Example: 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations
Excerpted from http://www.501c3.org/faqs.html#q1
"The term 'tax-exempt,' when used in reference to nonprofit organizations, generally refers to the net profits (proceeds over and above expenses) of an organization being exempt from federal and/or state income tax."

Note the reference to "net profits." It's impossible to zero balance your yearly earnings with expenses. And being in the red every year will guarantee the business will not operate for any extended period of time. So, apparently you're missing something about your non-profit knowledge.

"Example: 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations
Excerpted from http://www.501c3.org/faqs.html#q1
"The term 'tax-exempt,' when used in reference to nonprofit organizations, generally refers to the net profits (proceeds over and above expenses) of an organization being exempt from federal and/or state income tax."

You added to my comments, but nothing I said was incorrect other than the fact that you call them net profits when I called them profits. Sorry I was not technical enough for you there...

"Note the reference to "net profits." It's impossible to zero balance your yearly earnings with expenses. And being in the red every year will guarantee the business will not operate for any extended period of time. So, apparently you're missing something about your non-profit knowledge."

Can I bring up every single point about non-profit orgs you didn't spell out and claim you know little because you did not mention them? I don't have to write a book here, and never intended to say I knew everything, but my earlier points are not less valid simply because I did not thoroughly explain every single possible scenario.

No, the only item I took issue with was the blanket statement you made that a non-profit is operating illegally if it produces a profit. That's simply not true. If you don't remember saying it, look again at your comment(s). And the difference between profit and net profit, especially in this context, is entirely irrelevant - regardless of the scenario.