[00:40] <PCLine_> Hello
[17:37] <dzho> huh.  I guess they do describe themselves as a "start-up"  http://centerforopenscience.org/
[17:37] <jenni> [ COS | Home ] - https://j.mp/1ph2W8W
[17:38] <dzho> although "non-profit start-up" seems a little oxymoronic to me.
[19:04] <jrgifford> Hey, I was/is part of a non-profit startup
[19:04] <jrgifford> core product is non-profit, the data that comes out of it is what we sell to research institutions
[19:04] <jrgifford> or at least, that was the plan
[19:11]  * skellat wonders if a Form 13909-A is needed about non-profit status: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf
[19:13] <skellat> Yeesh, the dividing line between commercial activity and non-commercial activity keeps getting weirder and weirder as days go by
[19:21] <skellat> From climagic on Twitter, synthesize your own busy signal: play -n synth sine 480 sine 620 remix 1-2 fade 0 0.5 delay 0.5 repeat 5
[19:24] <jrgifford> skellat: well, we were a for-profit entity
[19:24] <jrgifford> however, we were going to operate in a very non-profit-like fashion
[19:24] <skellat> Yeah
[19:24] <skellat> That's what the law doesn't really play nice with
[19:24] <jrgifford> because otherwise (the theory went) we'd scare anyone looking to invest in the idea
[19:25] <skellat> I don't doubt it
[19:25] <jrgifford> anyway, the idea didn't go anywhere
[19:25] <skellat> Having the binary profit/non-profit split is not exactly the best thing for ordering the business world at times
[19:25] <jrgifford> yeah