[benatkin]

I hate to be that guy, but why use the GPL? Why not use MIT, which is popular in the Node.js community, or Apache 2, which is popular in the CouchDB community, or even a tri-license like the ACE Editor and many other Mozilla-related projects use?

GPL or not, I wish you luck in this project.

[streptomycin]

The GPL doesn't even mean much for SaaS. The AGPL is the license that best fits in with the FSF ideals in that scenario.

[flaminglunchbox]

GPL was chosen in this case as it was the best way for us to maintain control and fund this as a startup. That final pledge tier wouldn't exist otherwise. As we're trying to do this without large amounts of financial backing it would be difficult to ensure that development stayed open otherwise.

[shazow]

I don't understand how having a GPL license will improve your funding situation.

Are you expecting that people will come along and pay $4,096 for an MIT license?

If they were doing it to support the project, then they would do it just the same if it was MIT to begin with, but who would do this just to get a different license?

[flaminglunchbox]

The idea is that if a company wants to reserve the right to customize, commercialize and close the code they can... but only by supporting the completely open version first.

[streptomycin]

The GPL won't do that for SaaS. You need the AGPL.

[flaminglunchbox]

There's no planned SaaS component to this. It should primarily all be client-side and interface with established SaaS systems instead of requiring its own.