You're right in this case. There have been a number of other cases where the whole software is open source (under a GPL or AGPL license) and the author sells a "non-viral" commercial license. Qt comes to mind as an example of this.
In this particular case, the author seems to be doing a hybrid. The original library is LGPL. If you buy the "Pro" version, you not only get the closed source bits but you also get a non-viral license for the open source bit.
The headline does indeed seem misleading though.
FWIW, I've been earning a living via open source software since late 2007 – I've just been doing it as a full-time employee at companies (SitePen, Mozilla and now Adobe).
In this particular case, the author seems to be doing a hybrid. The original library is LGPL. If you buy the "Pro" version, you not only get the closed source bits but you also get a non-viral license for the open source bit.
The headline does indeed seem misleading though.
FWIW, I've been earning a living via open source software since late 2007 – I've just been doing it as a full-time employee at companies (SitePen, Mozilla and now Adobe).