Software Freedom Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
412203632
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
2124613245
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Computer Science

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,214,723
Expenses
$3,805,350
Assets
$5,401,246
Liabilities
$1,109,478

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen M Sandler (President and Executive Director)
  • Allison Randal (Board Chairperson, Vice President, and Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Karen M Sandler (President and Executive Director): $241,142 total reported compensation
  • Rick Sanders (General Counsel): $193,349 total reported compensation
  • Sage Sharp (Senior Director of Diversity and Inclusion): $162,788 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) promotes, improves, develops, facilitates & defends Free & Open Source Software (FOSS) & the right to software repair. SFC advocates for the public's software rights & freedoms. SFC provides a home & infrastructure to FOSS initiatives. SFC helps volunteers focus on improving FOSS for the public. Projects include: creation of FOSS for general public, copyleft licensing advocacy, & internships for contributors subject to systemic bias who are underrepresented in FOSS.

What it reported doing in 2024

License Compliance & Enforcement: Some FOSS is available under "copyleft" licenses, such as the General Public License (GPL). These licenses allow everyone to freely share, copy, modify and (re)install modified versions of software. SFC identifies situations where distributors fail to meet the copyleft requirements & requires them to provide the same rights to all those who receive the software distribution. Through this process, SFC ensures that the public has equal rights to use, improve and study software & experiment with their own modifications so that the rights of consumers to repair the software on their devices is restored. During the tax year, SFC continued litigation against a maker of Linux-based televisions in California state court in which SFC seeks the complete, corresponding source (CCS) for the copylefted components in the televisions. During the tax year, SFC also provided a grant to an individual to undertake a legal action in Germany where he successfully sought the CCS for the LGPL'd components on the router he purchased. We also designed & built a new wireless router, the OpenWrt One which gives people the ability to modify and fix their router out of the box. The OpenWrt One is an example of how to comply with copyleft licenses & overcome challenges cited in the industry. We also conduct talks and discussions at conferences to educate companies and consumers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.6%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.6% of revenue deployed · 78% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $241K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $638K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.