Ask HN: Please review my docs site
docs.plasmo.comFixed - it should point to the https://github.com/PlasmoHQ/docs instead
https://www.npmjs.com/package/plasmo claims it's MIT. Bait and switch?
Comes with ToS too. What the hell is going on there.
Technically, the compiled source published to NPM is MIT licensed (it's minified JS), and the end-user can reverse-engineer it however they like. MIT license does not mean human-readable source afaik :p
^ j/k fyi, since your comment sounded serious so I just wanted to ease the tension. We're planning to open-source the repo, but ATM we have not set up everything to welcome the community yet (CoC, contribution guideline, CI for testing, issue templates, etc...)
BTW, love your passion for open-source and appreciate the criticism (esp your effort in taking a deep look at the stuff we are building). The NPM page is nowhere ready for public view yet. The thought of slapping the TOS and Privacy Policy in the readme is so that if the user installed our CLI and managed to initiate some of the extra undocumented capability, we wouldn't be responsible for any damage to their hardware. But perhaps the MIT license should suffice for that case?
On the other hand, I am asking for feedback on the documentation, so if we can stay on that topic that would be much appreciated :D
My problem with this is that you are asking us for free review of a tool that you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed.
Surely you can see the problem with that.
You are also vastly misrepresenting the contents of your ToS here, which actually contain a binding arbitration clause and this unbelievable gem: "you agree not to [...] disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the SERVICE"
> you are asking us for free review of a tool
No, just the docs site - Please and thank you :)
> you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed.
I do not get your argument. The MIT license is not a consumer-right protection license, it is a license made to protect us, developers, from having to deal with hostile actors. Nowhere in the license does it says the developer is required or responsible for disclosing the source in a human-readable form. It simply says the user can use it for free, that the developer is not responsible and there is no warranty.
> this unbelievable gem
Why is it an unbelievable gem? I do not see why it is different from MIT's "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."? Also, thanks for parsing thru the TOS - I created it from a template, thus haven't gotten around to actually making sure it makes sense (i.e a TOS is made to protect me and my company so it made sense to me to just keep anything that would prevent legal trouble).
Of course you don't...
I am a developer, not a lawyer. I also do not understand why it was necessary for you to talk down to me? As strangers, your absence of patience, kindness, and courtesy makes you sound hostile, and frankly rude.
I can appreciate your passion for open source. Perhaps you feel that your behavior is justified because you are protecting something near and dear to your heart. However, please recall that we are both flesh and blood human beings, we make mistakes, we fix them, and we both deserve respect and decency.
All in all, I hope to see you with more kindness in the future. Thanks in advance!
P.s: technically, I can be a fridge. But then again, you would be being rude to a fridge :p
I am not kind? I did not disparage or misrepresent anything, and I did not make you sign a legal document to read my content either. I pointed out objective problems that you could easily have addressed at any point instead of doubling down.
Instead you are choosing to take offense, personally call me names, invent a flat-out crazy definition for "open source", stated that there's no difference between the MIT license and your consumer-hostile ToS (licenses are not ToS!), and try to justify your 17 pages of legalese (the most far-reaching I have ever read) by the fact that you are "not a lawyer". You know what not-lawyers don't do?
You could have "shown kindness" a few comments back by fixing the metadata of your NPM package, give any indication that the ToS were a mistake and would be fixed, or offer any sign at all that you were in fact "a flesh and blood human being" who fixes their mistakes.
I am not making you appear like a copyright troll. Feel free to stop at any time.
A better overview of like what browsers and maybe some more general project information. and it isnt very responsive FF iOS. Looks cool, maybe add like "cordova for browser extensions" or something more accurate tagline.
I see - I was debating whether it would be cool to reference another project in our documentation. I would say what we are creating is like "NextJS for browser extension development"
I’d like to get feedback on the documentation we wrote for our browser extension framework. Anything to add or remove? Are there sections that are too confusing or unclear?
Thank you in advance :)
You should put what the requirements are up-front. Only after reading through the file-structure did I understand that your plugin assumes both React and TypeScript is being used for building the extension.
It'd be great if the documentation could start with showing how is different from the many other similar solutions that came before you, to make users understand the value proposition of your framework a bit better.
I went to the main-page to see what the main product you were building, and seems the browser extension framework is the main product. I'm not sure if the Pricing is placeholder pricing or not, but $256 per user per month sounds like a lot for a extension framework, but maybe I'm not the target audience, I've only published a few browser extensions as an individual.
It is indeed placeholder pricing - I am not entirely sure how to structure this business yet, really wanted to lean toward an open-source model with premium support (hence the 256 pricing tag on premium support).
The framework itself is free. Only if the user require hands-on contracting work (i.e, a demo of integrating with their in-house framework) would it trigger the support price.
Your feedback indicates I should separate the "enterprise-support" pricing from the "Developer" or Team pricing, and also make it less expensive (certainly lower than $256). Since the base framework is free (like Next.JS), how much would you as a solo developer pay for a feature that allows you to test your extension without having to submit and wait for the chrome/edge webstore review?