Looking closer, the "Learn More" link under Single Developer says "Allow Highcharts to be used with an unlimited number of SaaS projects, web applications, intranets, and websites for you or your customers."

Based on this, their pricing seems reasonable.

Although the "directly or indirectly" is annoying: 1 developer working on charting integration and 5 working on e.g. database administration? Need a 10 seats license.

They basically want you to pay based on team size. However, I'm not sure how this sort of licensing would be enforceable though. I know of of multiple companies who use HC for free for commercial purposes on the basis that all the charts are behind logins and feel that's ok. If they had a more straightforward pricing scheme I have no doubt most would just pony up the cash.

The other problem with per developer is maintaining compliance. So every time I hire I have to remember I need to get another licence for this on any other products I have that uses this type of stupid boxed-software model. It adds unnecessary overhead that isn't justified for such a small piece of component software. This isn't Visual Studio we are talking about here.

Honestly their pricing is the only reason I'm not using them.

I don't even know what pricing per developer means. They should rethink this, because I know lots of people who ignore it because it doesn't make sense for their situation.

Agreed. This is a confusing and very strange way to do pricing. It shouldn't matter what the size of my team is. I should just be able to buy a license for my entire website/application.

What's the problem? Per-seat licenses are nothing new, it's how you have always bought Adobe/Microsoft/Autodesk/etc software.

Use d3 if you don't want to spend the money, it's much more powerful anyway.

The problem is that it's on a website, and the number of developers can change from day to day.

The license is not personal, so if another developer comes along he can take over without a new license.

It says "each person". I think I understand what they mean, but honestly, I'm not sure. For small teams using contractors, this is really unclear.

> Use d3 if you don't want to spend the money, it's much more powerful anyway.

I will, and that's the point. I don't see how this in any way invalidates my statements about their product

It didn't seem complicated to me.

You either license a site to use it, license a team of app developers to use it in however many sites you like, or buy an OEM to ship it.

No you licence a "page" to use it. A "web application" is not covered by the licence. The single website licence is nearly useless:

> For use on a simple webpage that is not considered a web application. A web application is a website that has customer specific data or charges for its use. This requires a Developer license.