

AGPLv3 and Funding - cdralla

I understand the legality of AGPLv3.<p>Will investors automatically shy away from products built on this specific license?<p>My initial feeling is that an investor would hesitate to fund AGPLv3 projects simply because, assuming the product gains tractions, competitors could swoop in.<p>That said, AGPLv3 allows that company to freely use any new features implemented by the 'swooping' company. In the end, given that the first company has traction and a user base, it shouldn't provide too much of a road block if a subsequent clone comes into play.<p>But, if it's black-letter law that investors don't touch AGPLv3 products, you play by their rules.
======
dalke
Well, it depends on the investor, doesn't it? Evidence strongly suggests Apple
is avoiding GPLv3 (much less AGPLv3), so if you want Apple to invest in you
then it's a no-go.

It depends also on the product and the market. If the AGPLv3 is for part of
the code base while you have other parts which aren't, then that's different
than having all AGPLv3 code.

Also, think back to the 1990s, when companies were hesitant to use GPL at all;
eg, wouldn't use Linux because it was under the strange GPLv2 license. That's
changed, but we're still in a period where people might not want to take a
chance on v3 just because no on else has taken a chance on v3.

~~~
cdralla
Yes, it certainly depends on the investor. I'm wondering about early-stage
investors that typically back lean, minimum viable products and companies.

If large institutions (Apple, as you mentioned) stay away from AGPLv3, I would
assume early-stage investors would also stay away (the assumption being that
these investors are looking for a large pay-off down the line, either through
a target acquisition or some other self-sustaining model).

I'm focusing on bootstrapped ideas and products, using some previously
developed code licensed under v3 as a way to get out the gate
quickly/affordably while focusing on the bootstrapped product.

I suppose that a skilled programmer, with the help of legal counsel, could
create a work-around that separates the existing and newly developed code
base. But my understanding is that v3 covers modifications and derivative
works. And, hiring a capable lawyer might be just as cost prohibitive as
hiring a programmer to build from scratch.

~~~
dalke
It really depends. You could also argue that an early-stage investor is more
willing to fund something based on a still-uncommon license.

Since the answer to your generic question is "it depends", you're not going to
get much other helpful information here. Perhaps you should have asked "who is
funding AGPLv3-based projects."

~~~
cdralla
I appreciate the suggestion. I'll give that post a try.

