Comment by roenxi
8 hours ago
> Concretely, this means that no takeover of the company is possible without the Foundation’s approval. Even if Boris were to pass away, even if an irresistible investor came knocking, control of Infomaniak remains in the hands of a structure dedicated to its mission.
This reads quite naive; if you want a legal entity to be ideologically driven then it needs to be controlled by a small number of ideologues. Committee-like structures tend to mean revert to a reasonable position that bows to financial pressure. Structures guarantee longevity, but the ideological underpinnings of the that longevity tend to stray.
One of the major lessons of political history is it isn't possible to structure your way out of a situation where there is an incentive to do something. If Boris Sienenthaler has proven to have good judgement it is a much better idea leaving him in charge than re-rolling dice. Any institution quickly becomes a corrupt shadow of what it was originally envisioned as once the original people involved move on.
> Any institution quickly becomes a corrupt shadow of what it was originally envisioned as once the original people involved move on.
The debian project here acts as a counter-example: The institution governing the project far outlived its original creator and the "debian social contract" clearly helped to that.
Additionally, Infomaniak seems to have registered here as a Swiss "public interest" foundation. This has several implications:
(1) Swiss authority regularly audit the foundation and verify that there is no conflict of interests with the registered chart.
(2) Usage of the money should be done in respect of the chart.
(3) If any of the previous conditions is not respected. The Swiss authorities can step it and dissolve the entire thing or even take control.
Not OP, but considering the American case (OpenAI) I do understand the OP's concern.
You are right but the ideology of a company is also driven by the society in which it exist. Switzerland is far more "conservative" (in the meaning to change slowly) than the US. Like our biggest retailer is "Migros" which still refuses to sell alcohol according to its statutes which where formalized somewhere in the 50s/60s of the last century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migros
Migros has Denner and "Migros Partenaire"[0] that both sell alcohol
0: https://filialen.migros.ch/fr/migros-partenaire-mp-ouchy
The relationship with Alcohol in many European countries is a bit different anyway. In some nordic countries you can only buy it in official state-owned stores (and it is incredibly expensive due to taxes).
Not sure if that's a good example. They bought a competitor so they could sell alcohol under its name.