Here's the thing...the campaign doesn't really make sense as stated.
Normally, when you go with a GPL license, your intention is to build a community of developers and maintainers. It's more a political or philosophical thing. It's not a business model.
What's being proposed goes against that philosophy.
It would be one thing to solicit contributions before
development begins. That sometimes happens in order to gauge interest before committing to a development effort. Or to GPL something once it is developed and ask for contributions to keep the project going. That's the way most FOSS projects work.
But to basically hold the GPL ransom
for an existing fully developed product
? It's kind of tacky. And it really doesn't match up to how GPL/FOSS projects work.
Then to add a "stretch" goal and say that instead of going with the GPL, you'll release under a BSD (aka "take the work of others and run") license where you won't be bound to share the source for any additions or mods you may make - with the strong hint you can repackage it as the core of a commercial product? (Hey, it worked for Apple when they did OSX right?)
That simply makes no sense...unless...you were planning on getting out of it...looked for a buyer - but couldn't find one and figured: What the hell...if we can make some money on the way out, we'll release it to the public and let them have at it...but...maybe we can make even more money if some company somewhere decides they want to use the code in their own commercial product...so we better make the BSD license an option too. Since the only way we'll probably crack the original target is if some business interest gets interested and coughs up bigger bucks, lets make the BSD license our pledge if the more serious money comes in.
That (to me) is the only rationale I could come up with for why the BSD license is the stretch
prize - and the GPL is the target goal