> DuckDB Labs, the company that employs DuckDB’s core contributors, has not had any outside investments, and as a result, the company is fully owned by the team. Labs’ business model is to provide consulting and support services for DuckDB, and we’re happy to report that this is going well. With the revenue from contracts, we fund long-term and strategic DuckDB development with a team of almost 20 people. At the same time, the intellectual property in the project is guarded by the independent DuckDB Foundation. This non-profit foundation ensures that DuckDB will be around long-term under the MIT license.
This seems like an excellent structure for long-term protection of the open source project. What other projects have taken this approach?
I thought this exact thing after reading the post. I can't imagine a better, practical structure:
DuckDB Labs: The core contributors. Instead of developing features that will be behind a paywall, they provide support and consulting. Awesome.
DuckDB Foundation: A non-profit that ensures DuckDB remains MIT licensed. Perfect.
We actually just published a post on how to replace your warehouse with DuckDB. It's certainly not a good move for every company using something like Snowflake, but it was the right move for us.
How do you ensure shares don't get diluted as people leave and new ones get hired?
I remember this was an issue at an ESOP I worked for. They had to pressure former employees and buy back shares from them. If you have too many shareholders in the US then your corporate status changes
Granted this is a nonprofit so maybe the rules are different, but the fundamental problem remains
A 10% option pool, set aside at the beginning, should help resolve this, but employees also need to be educated that dilution is just part of life in a startup.
This seems like an excellent structure for long-term protection of the open source project. What other projects have taken this approach?