Show HN: Intro.js v2.3.0 – Step-by-step guide and feature introduction

For others wondering about how this works and considering their options:

I've spent a significant time around lawyers who do license/copyright work for the two startups I've worked for. I am not a lawyer myself and this isn't legal advice.

This is a fairly standard dual-license setup where the author hopes to offer the software for free to other open source creators and providers but wants to take a small rake from commercial entities that use the software.

"Dual-license" refers to the fact that by default this code uses one license but for a fee, it can be used under a different license. Some libraries are dual-licensed but do not require a fee but instead allow consumers to choose which license they would prefer to use the code under. jQuery fell into this category for a long time[1].

The first and default license that this code carries is the AGPL. High-level notes about the AGPL:

   * Requires[2] code "linked" with this code in an application to be Open Source.
   * Requires changes to this code to also be free.
   * Is a derivative of the GPL designed to cover holes in the "linking" terminology that allowed networked software to skirt the "linked code must be free" requirement.
   * Plays nicely with other OS licenses such as the GPL, WTFPL, MIT, Apache, BSD etc. in that it doesn't require other code "linked" with it use the AGPL but does require them to be Open Source.

The second license, which requires a fee, allows the code to be used under a different set of restrictions. In this case, the only restriction appears to be the number of uses of the code. This effectively frees a private entity to make modifications to the code and to "link" it to other code without having to share those modifications or the linked code.

   1. https://blog.jquery.com/2012/09/10/jquery-licensing-changes/
   2. My understanding is that using AGPL code in a commercial application is usually advised against by corporate lawyers who work with IP/Copyright issues. To my knowledge, it's never been tested in court but no one is excited to be the first to try and therefore it's a risk rarely taken.

Bootstrap Tour author here. Thanks for the feedback. :) Do you, by any chance, still have your tour code from when you used Bootstrap Tour. I'm very interested in learning more about this issue and eventually fixing it.

FYI, Bootstrap Tour also has the "element highlight" feature. It's called "backdrop".

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm looking for a product exactly like this. Right now bootstraptour looks to be what I'm going with.

Intro.js author is here. Most of issues are pretty old and have already fixed. I'm going to close them in next two weeks so we will have less than 30 open issues.

They're probably using intro.js

It's possible. I've worked with the commercial side of an open source project where the company that I worked for paid the OS team for some dev-time and guaranteed code reviews. It worked out okay but I assume that the cost was significantly higher than the numbers on this page. The project that we did this for was significantly more complex than Intro.js.

Companies are willing to trade money for a guarantee that something they are adopting in anger will stick around. That said I don't know if this pricing model is the right way to go about it, price signaling is a big factor at the enterprise level. For everyone below enterprise this will feel like a donation.

On a slightly different note, is anyone familiar with a successful AGPL licensed project? I worked with an OS teams a few years back where someone involved made the decision to go AGPL for commercial reasons and 100% of the OS contributions dried up over night.

If you're using the library for a commercial purpose, a $10 lifetime license seems pretty cheap. You only pay more than that if you want support/themes.

Pendo.io does this and a lot more.

Try http://www.getchaperone.com. It's based on the open-source http://bootstraptour.com.