Lack of exact licensing terms may make any legal dept (or just copyright-conscious individual) wary. The table at /license doesn't count - there are no definitions and without those some rows are really odd, like "multiple developers" restriction (who counts as a "developer"? does the "personal" license forbid two computer-savvy persons making a website? or, say, what if I code the page myself but then call someone for assistance?)
Legalese sucks hard (and layman-readable licenses are hard to write), but ambiguity is even worse.
Yes, you're right, the legal stuff sucks. We wanted to make it as simple as possible and not have 100 pages terms and conditions. We will try to make that more clear so people can understand that if they get this product for Free can be used by how many devs they have, in how many products they want.
Our business is to create good looking products that speed-up the development for web developers and not to go after people who use our products without a license. Probably there are 1000 people every day who just "View Source" of the page and get the product. We cannot and don't want to focus on those people :D
Please stop wasting potential customer's time by offering a great looking, professional-grade product with a horrible, non-professional license. I'd love to use your templates in my business. The pricing is on the high end of what I'd pay but not so high that I'd walk away. But I have to walk away,I can't allow myself to waste any more time looking at your site because the license is an absolute deal breaker.
Licenses aren't just "ugh, we do software but we have to put up some stuff about licensing." Licenses are essential to any form of commercial software. If I base my front end on your bundle, which I paid for, I'm basing my business on your bundle. If I don't know what I've bought and what I can and can't do with your bundle, I don't know what I can do with my business. That's an absolute deal breaker. There's a reason why licenses look the way they do. This kind of stuff is incredibly hard to specify and the evaluation criteria isn't "I'm a programmer and I think I know what it means" it's "I'm a court of law reviewing how licenses have been interpreted historically for the past thousand years."
Did you pay a lawyer who specializes in software licenses to write that license? If you did, find a different lawyer. If you didn't, take down the license and your offer to let people use software you don't know how to license until you have found an actual lawyer and had them draft an actual license that is as professional as your product.
If you want a plain-vanilla license out of their law firm's files, expect it to cost a few thousand dollars to have your license prepared (mostly for the time it takes them to understand what you want). If you want an unusual or highly customized license, expect it to cost more like five to ten thousand dollars to have it prepared (because they will need to bill you for time spent writing that custom document). Licenses are hard. They are literally the contract between your business and your customers' businesses. They matter.
If you had a real license, I would have bought a pro license this morning. You don't, so all I can do is complain about it on hacker news and hope in some future life I find your site again and find a decent license on it.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. We have over 1 million users who checked our resources, 97.000+ web developers are using them in 150.000+ projects and this is the first time when somebody is not happy with our licensing options. We will see what we can do in this area.
Given the number of questions on this HN page about licensing I think it's a mistake to conclude my comment is the first time someone wasn't happy with your licensing (And people who pay for software tend to be the same people who care about licensing, so the fraction who care about licensing is likely to be a much higher fraction of potential paying customers than simply x/1.000.000)
How about just offering it for sale on envato under their licensing. Yes, you give up a bit of revenue because they take a cut but you don't have to pay a lawyer to draft a license for you, and you can still offer it on your own page under your own non-professionally-drafted license at the same time if you really want to do that too.
At any responsible business with 100+ employees, third party software often passes through legal if it doesn't adhere to a pre-existing license(apache, mit, etc.). I think it wouldn't be correct to assume that there are only a few people concerned with licenses, especially because no license means all rights reserved, and you guys are pretty close to "no license". There are excellent licenses to choose from, and some already seem to fit your needs(as you describe them).
On another note, I personally see a license as one of many signs of product maturity. If there is a well established license in place, then that tells me the product is likely pretty stable and this along with other factors helps me determine if I should make the time investment to try and use that product. I think the issue here isn't whether your current users are having any problems with your license, but rather there are likely potential users who haven't even touched it because of the license. Having an explicit license is very helpful in the long run.
Custom licences are icky. I suspect many devs will prefer to go for something inferior than to risk money sink of a lawsuit that will hypothetically arise sometime in the future due to a silly misunderstanding of licensing terms.
Legalese sucks hard (and layman-readable licenses are hard to write), but ambiguity is even worse.