Re: [Trisquel-users] Nano Express team confused about the GPL license?

[xliang9550]

Maybe this is called "selling exception", as described in one of RMS's  
articles (entitled something like "selling exception").


Selling exception is different from dual-licensing, where (re)distributors  
may choose a license as they wish. The software is still GPL-licensed.


It's is also better than exclusively distributing your software as  
proprietary software. Even someone may purchase a permission (or something  
like "becoming Sponsor Middle patron or higher") to use it under a non-free  
license, the software itself is still free software.

[Trisquel-users] Nano Express team confused about the GPL license?

[tegskywalker]

Nano Express at https://nanoexpress.js.org/license is a Node based framework  
that has a simple version (Apache 2.0) and a Pro version under the GPL v3.  
They state this in their reasoning for the "pro" version:


"If you application source was closed, you can get access via becoming  
Sponsor Middle patron or higher, else may be License violating to your  
application. I see clones and downloads statistics via npm and github"


Is it me or do they not know what a GPL license is? If you are using a  
framework to write your code, it doesn't make the entire code GPL right? On  
top of that, this is GPL and not AGPL meaning that even if this is a  
"violation" it doesn't mean you have to share the code since that is what the  
AGPL is supposed to do. Even if this was AGPL, wouldn't it fall under the  
same guidelines that this is just a framework co-existing with your code?