Inconsistency licence statements between README and LICENSE

The README states

License

Authlib offers two licenses:

    BSD for open source projects
    Commercial license for closed source projects

however, the LICENSE is a BSD license, which is compliant with closed source (redistribution). As it stands, I read this as

If I develop a close source project, I must buy a commercial license; if it is an open source, I can use BSD.

If this is the case, then this project is not BSD licensed, as its actual license is

If usage in open source, you can use it under the terms of BSD; else, you must buy a commercial license

I propose that we clarify what exactly do we mean with Commercial license for closed source projects.

[v3ss0n]

All i wanted to point out is :

• its confusing to have a commercial licenses
• @lepture can put gh sponsor or many other crowd funding setups.
• also placing a link to website for commercial support license is a better idea instead of an extra license.

[v3ss0n]

Some orgs , especially big-tech are very serious on licenses and this would cause this great lib to get not adopted. I think you can remove and still offer commercial license by placing a link , to the webpage ? That way it will be a lot more easier for companies to adopt. Now it sound like the are are some catches inside,