Hi,

You probably know that the model that you are leaning towards used to
be a common one for scientific software. The argument was that
someone had to pay for the programmers.

The reason that model started to fail was the point that Vanessa just
made - you'll have very few users. In effect that means your
resource has very little scientific impact. It also means that you
will make it very unlikely your product will get used by people from
poor countries, or people working in small labs, or cross-disciplinary
labs where neuroscience is only a small part.

The philosophical issue of free / libre is better phrased as a
sociological one. Giving away scientific work for your fellow
scientists to use is the model that matches our understanding of how
science should work. It increases goodwill and collaboration,
goodwill which will be directed at your lab in various ways such as
increased collaborations, and fixes to any glitches in your data or
software or documentation.

I think you'll also have a hard time in this age of increasing amounts
of open data and increasing agreement on the necessity of open data.
My guess is that you will be perceived as doing 'the wrong thing' by
selling your data, or at least not the scientific thing.

Anyway - it sounds as if your decision either way will have a
significant impact on the future of your lab,

Cheers,

Matthew