I think I prefer the paid-support model a-la RedHat. I think the OP makes a good point of this licensing possibly hindering uptake/contributions to the Meteor project. Just by virtue of Meteor choosing this licensing model, I've lost some of my excitement to try it out. I would most certainly use it for something commercial and because it looks so sweet I would be willing to shell out some $ for, say, some email support or maybe for some bleeding-edge features.
Having to worry about not being able to use Meteor in a commercial capacity without knowing the price-point breaks the deal off the bat. I'm a one man team and don't have the time nor resources to swim through legalities and pricing--I need to be writing code.
This isn't to say, though, that if I wanted to do something outside of the scope of a commercial app I wouldn't try Meteor--but who knows when/if that will happen.
That's kind of a silly view. You would rather spend 6 months "writing code" than spend 1 day negotiating a contract that would save you 6 months of effort?
What if sending them an email that took as long to write as this HN post would get you a quote?
How about if my budget for negotiating contracts is $0?
If I don't have a baseline price and I am worried about licensing, I'm not going to spend time trying to fight for a budget to then spend time trying to negotiate a contract--I don't have time.
If I could dev without licensing worries, then I would fight for a budget for things like support and add-ons.
Also, may I ask why you put "writing code" in quotations?
Having to worry about not being able to use Meteor in a commercial capacity without knowing the price-point breaks the deal off the bat. I'm a one man team and don't have the time nor resources to swim through legalities and pricing--I need to be writing code.
This isn't to say, though, that if I wanted to do something outside of the scope of a commercial app I wouldn't try Meteor--but who knows when/if that will happen.