What about the corporate structure of the Guardian newspaper in the UK - a for-profit business 100% owned by a not-for-profit? The not-for-profit isn’t allowed to pay dividends, so 100% of the profits are either reinvested in the business, invested in the not-for-profit’s endowment, or donated to charity
This has some overlap with the structures used by OpenAI and Mozilla, but unlike OpenAI, the Guardian doesn’t have any “capped profits”, 100% of profits go to the not-for-profit owner. There are employee salaries to pay, and likely also some debt interest, but those are an expense not a profit distribution
I'm struggling to see what problem you think this solves, or why this is a response to what I posted.
Ask yourself: are you trying to imagine a way of helping inmates retain access to their Google services, or are you trying to shoehorn a business into the much more obvious solutions to that problem?
If you don’t make something people want, you fail. If you don’t make the unit then the overall economics work, you also fail. If you fail, no one else is helped.
This is a dumb business to create, not because it’s technically hard, or because it wouldn’t help some people, but because Google is one policy email away from making your business obsolete. If you get traction, they’re fairly likely to do that for the PR.
I mentioned more details about it in another comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35967694
This has some overlap with the structures used by OpenAI and Mozilla, but unlike OpenAI, the Guardian doesn’t have any “capped profits”, 100% of profits go to the not-for-profit owner. There are employee salaries to pay, and likely also some debt interest, but those are an expense not a profit distribution