Damien Katz

There are plenty of GPL licenced projects that have got funding. Here are a few http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/082806-open-source.html?t5
personally for my business about the only non-GPL software that I use is Notes. I do consultancy and development for my clients, I always look for and reccomend GPL software as part of what I do. I would happily pay for stuff like training courses and conferences related to GPL software, and of course I would happily contribute back fixes and enhancements. GPL is good. don't be scared.

Incidentally I managed to get Alpha 1 running on Linux under Wine, but I am having problems with my apache configuration installing the HTTP extension to get the HttpRequest class available to PHP. I think it should work though. I guess a native Linux build should just be a matter of compiling it as there is no UI to worry about?

I think that you might want to strongly consider using an open-source license other than the GPL. Something along the lines of the LGPL or MPL give you a few more options that the GPL preclude and they are also more appealing to third-party users and developers (you know, the kind of poeple who might pay you for support or add-ons to a library they are already using...) To give a quick example, my company has produced open-source code in the past, use various open-source packages in current versoins of the product, and supported the developers of packages we use...but, whenever the time comes to look at libraries and frameworks to perform tasks in our software GPL code is never on the list. The viral nature of the GPL is a real deal-killer here; it is great for development tools and self-contained applications, but when it comes to libraries and frameworks I know that I am not alone in having a "so at what point of development/extending are we considered to have been 'infected' and how do we avoid that point..." thought in the back of my mind.

Since this product is not going to itself be a "killer app" but might be the foundation upon which such an app is built you might attract more developer interest by eliminating this particular worry from their mind when examining the product.

While an open-source product is not a deal-killer for most VCs it will make your job harder if you do decide to look for outside funding. You will need to answer questions about this particular choice and what impact it will have on the potential upside for an investment (in my experience VCs like companies that _use_ a lot of open-source software much more than they like companies that _produce_ such software.) In this case a lot will depend on what your target market is and how you spin your story.

If you think about a GPL license and closed-source add-ons you should check if this works. The GPL is very strict about the mix of open- and closed-source, especially if you start accepting patches from third party developers.
The GPL is not the best license to earn money but a good protection that others do it instead of you.
As a venture capitalist I would not invest in a GPL project.

+1 for MPL

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-faq.html

One obstacle you may encounter is the remaining prevalence of misconceptions regarding open source software. Here are the two I still see most frequently (both of which are easy to debunk if the misconceived is willing to listen):
1. It isn't supported - baloney. Open source software is often better supported than closed source, mostly because its openness allows controlled incorporation of contributions from a global community instead of just an insular team.
2. It isn't secure - baloney. Just because the source code of your database software is open, that doesn't mean your data is. For example, MySQL is an open source database platform, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over storing confidential data in a MySQL database.

That said, as mentioned above, I'd recommend a different license. A couple interesting features of the GPL that may scare off investors and potential customers:
1. GPL'ed software that fully conforms to its own license must provide no warranty, and must conspicuously notify the user that the software is provided with no warranty, which would imply that no support is available.
2. Derivative works are required to inherit the license... so they must also be open source, and must provide no warranty. This isn't quite as limiting as it sounds, because commercial software that integrates with a MySQL database, for example, isn't actually a derivative of MySQL; it's a separate entity. But this can be confusing to companies that are considering using an open source application... in a previous job, I was even told by a manager not to use an open source version control software because their manager thought that meant we'd have to make our software open source.

Using the GPL is probably your best starting point. You can always release the same code under different Free and Comercial license later.

Using the GPL first means that no one can make money from the code without getting a different licensing agreement from you.

Here's a short rundown of some of the license:
GPL: No one can bundle your code without GPL'ing there code.
LGPL: No one can modify your code, but they can bundle it with anything
BSD: Anyone can resell your code with a single line of attribution to you.
MPL: Something between the last two, not sure :)

Other comments that indicate problems combining GPL and commercial component together wouldn't apply to you: you are the copyright holder of all the code ;)

I'd like to see the code so I hope you do pick a OSS license.

Thanks everyone. John D. Heintz comment hits the nail on the head: GPL is most restrictive for everyone else BUT me. GPL'ing it doesn't cost me any freedom whatsoever.

I always wondered about this license stuff - if you go one way now - whats the implication to change later?

As owner do you not have that right? Maybe the issue is downstream when you change and people can legally say "well at release 0.2 you allowed us to do this so we will" - even though today the terms have changed.

Hi Damien,

You might want to listen to a podcast Scott Hanselman recently did on open-source licenses. It can be found here: http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=38

> I always wondered about this license stuff - if you go one way now - whats the implication to change later?

Since I own the copyrights to all code, I am not bound to the GPL. Therefore, I can at any time continue to modify the code and produce new builds, but am not compelled to release the source. I can can also sell traditional closed source licenses just like an old fashioned "closed source" software company. Therefore, if you pay me enough, you too can be released from the GPL license.

Thanks Wassem, I'm listening to it now.

MySQL seem to have had success with dual licensing - GPL / Commercial i.e. pay if you want to bundle couchdb in your closed source produce.