Most interesting in the regard of (eventually) being able to replace Selenium in our stack. While currently in an early stage - it will be capable of doing pretty much everything Selenium can do - without requiring Java. Functional / UI / E2E testing with a Node.js based stack would allow an even greater audience to create meaningful tests.
It is dual-licensed, MIT and GPL. Choose the MIT License to do what the fk you like. Choose the GPL License if you're building some GPL software yourself, and need all the components to be GPL-licensed as well. Maybe have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing
URI.js could be really useful for developers building web apps that need to do a lot of URL parsing or manipulation. But developers who only need basic functionality outside of performance-critical loops would probably be better off using built-in functionality.
According to Google's Closure Compiler URI.js is compiled down to 11.81KB (3.38KB gzipped)
Including punycode.js and IPv6.js you get 15.03KB (4.87KB gzipped)
added your link to the alternatives section in README.md
Do you honestly think I ever thought about my dimwit-no-rocket-science URI.js ending up on hacker news? But, to satisfy hacker news readers, I added the terms "fluent interface" and "method chaining" (while preserving "jQuery-like" for normal folk…)
Not to be dismissive, but I feel that if you're a jQuery user, you shouldn't be calling it jQuery-like|style|whatever suffix either. The purpose of terms like fluent interface is so that we can identify a pattern and speak a common language.
Cool work none the less, I didn't give you props in my original post.