Understanding the GPLv3 License

[WebDevandPhoto]

... I can't sell premium gs templates.

That's not my interpretation
So long as it's also given as open source (just the non CSS and Javascript) then there's no reason you can't sell the CSS and JS in a package and just make sure to inlcude the GPLv3 license in that package, a disclaimer, and a link or information concerning the online location of the open source for the GPLv3 content. Maybe php use of GPLv3 content makes whatever uses the GPLv3 content GPLv3 BUT CSS is NOT project independent and neither is Javascript for the most part. Those two don't RELY on the GPLv3 content to function. PHP calls on the GPLv3 functions however do... either way yea I agree it's not clear on what is what in terms of official-ness... BUT as far as packaging GS with your theme.. with split licensing it seems legal and without infringments. Just because the original developer is no longer part of the project who decided the license type... how can anyone else challenge that because from my understanding Chris still holds the rights unless it becomes public domain by his admission? who has the right or interests other than him to sue anyone regarding disagreements of GetSimple license terms???
Unless Chris signed a notarized bill of sale and license transfer to one of the development members here... it still belongs to him. I say this all in opinion.

[shawn_a]

Jquery uses dual licensing, mit and gpl2

[WebDevandPhoto]

Jquery uses dual licensing, mit and gpl2

I think I'll have every license type under the sun in my theme by the time I'm done with it! lulz Awesome!