New comment by blacklightpy on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/48957#issuecomment-2025783253

Comment:
> Hey. About bsd it was just my guess. Edit text if there's an available option please

@iFoundSilentHouse I'm also not sure what the problem is. JUCE says if you use it without paying you must release it as GPL. But they say that's forcing GPL.

But if I reword it without changing it as if you use the software and don't want to release it as GPL, you must pay for it, there doesn't seem to be any problem.

This is the way in which Qt is licensed too.

The confusion maybe regarding the way in which the EULA says if you use it, you must release the source code as per GPL. So they seem to think simply downloading it binds you to the EULA or forced release of source code even if you are not distributing it.

But I see it as, if you use it, you have to either pay for the EULA or use it under GPL, meaning, for private use, you are supposed distribute the source code according to GPL, which means you don't have to at all, because you don't have to distribute it if you are not distributing binaries. And for public distribution, you should release the source code or pay for nonfree distribution.

Apart from this, I don't see the nonfree terms. What's the difference between JUCE and Qt?

The only reason for this dual licensing is that some people may want to use it for proprietary use cases without being restricted by GPL. It doesn't seem to want to restrict free users in any manner, because it is dual licensed.

The EULA is distinct from the GPL license, both of which are the options. Void can just choose GPL.

Both of these (that it is dual licensed, as well as you can use it without distributing the source code privately) are clarified well in the JUCE FAQ.