[contravariant]

Yeah I'm not seeing it either. It's even weirder that the code itself is distributed with an MIT license, which suggests you're free to download and modify the code to disable the revenue sharing. This conflicts with some of their other statements though. In the readme they do outline the option to use it with a open source license (without any support), but they seem to contradict this in the following sentence in their readme:

>If use in commercial project, please get a license, or, you have monetized more than $1000 using this plugin, you are also required to either get a commercial license ($20). As a commercial customer, you will be supported with high priority, via private email or even Skype chat.

Which is nigh illegible.

Does anyone know what happens when someone publishes conflicting licenses?

[mannerheim]

Since the Wiki part isn't a license itself, I would think there isn't legal relevance to it, but given that the author doesn't seem to be a native English speaker, a generous interpretation might be that a commercial user could still fork this; it's 'required' in the sense that you have to pay for the convenience of having it available on NPM, which the author disallows you from making trivial changes to and republishing on there.

That's unlikely to be legally enforceable on NPM, but they might honour takedowns anyway.

[abofh]

You were free to give author money the moment you used his code, why are you worrying about the license - you can copy, modify and maintain a version that pays you.

You just have to, you know, work