Hacker News Reader

Comment by bayesianhorse | Hacker News Reader

Commercial javascript libraries have a tough stance. "Free for non-commercial" is essentially meaningless, since there is no clear definition of commercial use. For me, I wouldn't even consider including such a library into any software (OS or commercial) which runs on multiple domains/servers/computers, because it makes licensing and scaling less flexible.

To justify a licensing price, a javascript library needs to offer huge, peerless, hard to imitate functionality, stable code base, rapid bug-fixing and preferably a paid team working on it.

Which isn't to say that nobody will buy it. At $99 per site even one or two dozens of customers would cover the development costs.

View on HN

I think you're underestimating the development costs for a commercial Javascript project which offers "huge, peerless, hard to imitate functionality, stable code base, rapid bug-fixing and preferably a paid team working on it.".

I was referring to this specific library which isn't really that big and isn't that hard to immitate...

This isn't good. Developers should have a way to make a quick buck in the web space as well, and not just by selling Wordpress themes. Sandstorm.io could provide a way, but I wish we had alternatives.

I disagree. 99 is a very reasonable price. I pay much more for IDEs, tools, libraries, services, support, and infrastructure. 99 is a reasonable one-time cost, all things considered (assuming it works on all modern browsers and mobile).

It is hard to justify unless you know you need it. IDEs get used on multiple projects. This license is per site. IDEs often have some kind of trial or at least you got to play with it on your friend's computer first. But "commercial use" could include testing it in your commercial application.

I prefer licenses that are based on how much something gets used. So, free if your site has small traffic or maybe free if the number of developers using it is small. That lets me use it in experimental projects or personal side projects (which may or may not make money and hence may be commercial) but not have to pay until the project grows large enough to be worth buying something like this.

I think the only library I've ever bought for a web project was $30 for a site license. It was when I worked at a company and multiple projects were going to use it and run from the same domain.

As someone who has worked at a job where spending $40 on an IDE was a big a deal, I can see where you're coming from. My current job doesn't bat an eye unless it's over $1000, so I know it's all relative.

I actually didn't say that $99 is unreasonable. I'm just saying that I would see the effort involved in adhering to this license in a commercial or open source project wouldn't be justified by the functionality.

In this licensing model, it is far from certain that the library will continue to be developed and supported.

I do understand that buying code can be a very good choice. But the decision isn't just "purchase price" vs "features".

It would seem to me that charging for premium support for libraries would be far more effective than charging for a license. You don't want to do anything to limit its wider use lest it be supplanted by a more widely available library that has a less restrictive license. But it's always painful to get support for very popular libraries, so that pain can be monetized quite easily. This also has the added benefit of locking people into using your library. They can either pay cash for premium support, or they can pay the tax of switching to a different library.

$99 is cheap. How much would it cost to do it yourself?

$99 isn't the full price. It's $99 for every installation, in a commercial application. For an open source application it means tracking the license and making sure every user of the application pays the $99 if he hosts the application publicly.

Also you still have to support the code yourself, even if you buy it.

I'm not saying that this is completely unreasonable. What I am saying is that small javascript libraries are a very tough sell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com