There is still a licence between Pinegrow and GSAP and like @matjaz said:
Our contacts at GSAP / Webflow assured us that existing agreements will continue to be honored. This means that nothing changes for Pinegrow Interactions. That said, despite GSAP going free, it remains a paid license for us and it does not include previously bonus plugins.
So I think there is no problem at all there and GSAP is totally free also for commercial use and you are allowed to use it aside of Interactions. Nobody knows if you use it in a visual editor or Sublime Text!
I have lots of interaction saved as projects (100+) and creating some kind of new Interactions will make my projects uneditable! So no not a good idea!
Thanks for your reply. I understand your attachment to the current GSAP-based Interactions, and just to be clear, I’m absolutely not suggesting that Pinegrow remove it or break compatibility with existing projects.
That said, I believe there’s a real misunderstanding around the legal grey zone created by the new GSAP license. While it’s true that Pinegrow’s license is still honored (and I made that clear in my post), the updated terms explicitly prohibit using GSAP in visual no-code tools that could compete with Webflow, and that definition is intentionally vague.
It’s not about how you write code personally, or whether someone uses Sublime Text or a visual tool. The issue is redistribution and the packaging of GSAP into tools that others use to build visual animations, even more so if those tools are commercial, or client-facing.
For example, a freelance developer can safely use GSAP to build animations in a custom-coded website for a client.
But things get riskier when:
The project includes a visual UI that allows the client to manipulate GSAP-based animations without writing code.
The site becomes part of a SaaS, CMS, or template system that empowers others to create animations visually.
You unknowingly drift into “tool” territory, even at small scale, and that’s where the license terms apply.
So yes, today Pinegrow is protected by its existing agreement. But that could change, and if it does, the community will need an open, MIT-licensed fallback to preserve continuity. That’s the only reason I raised this to future-proof Pinegrow, not to break what already works.
Lawyer verbiage is generally vague for reason, as a psychologist I’m sure you understand, so Webflow’s legal deployment of the GSAP being FREE is no exception.
So in this regard people should be scared to even use
dat.gui
lil-gui
control-panel
tweakpane
guify
oui
controlkit
variaboard
palette.js
quicksettings
etc.,
… with GSAP anymore, Codepen is now a legal mess in this regard with that mindset. .
Most negative comments and pushback across the web regarding Webflow allowing GSAP to be FREE seem to be knee-jerk reactions. So lets be realistic, it’s literally just days away from this monumental occurrence, let’s instead see how it plays out and unfolds.
Webflow may evaluate the spotty tumultuous feedback of giving GSAP for FREE and provide further usage and legal clarity, as they seem pretty in tune with the industry. Or if anyone has legitimate concerns they can logically contact the source and gain true clarity instead of dwelling in speculation in public settings.
Thanks for your input, but if we follow your reasoning to the end, it seems that freedom of expression should be suspended when things become uncomfortable for certain interests.
That’s not how open discussion works.
Let me be clear: I’m not speculating.
I’m referring to the explicit wording in GSAP’s own license:
“This license does not allow the use of the GSAP software in any product, tool, or service that enables users to create visual animations without code in a way that competes with Webflow.”
There’s nothing vague about that. And “competes with Webflow” is a broad and subjective clause. That is the legal grey zone I referred to.
If someone builds a small visual editor using GSAP for internal use or client work, it could be interpreted as violating those terms, even unintentionally. That’s not a “knee-jerk reaction”, that’s a legitimate concern.
Also, suggesting that people should “just contact the source” instead of discussing it publicly misses the point entirely. Discussion forums exist for a reason, to exchange viewpoints, raise questions, and share insight. Respecting that is part of healthy online interaction.
And by the way, online harassment and attempts to silence others are legally recognized and punishable in many jurisdictions. So I would recommend allowing people to speak without trying to undermine them or discourage open debate.
That said, your profile isn’t public either. Surprising?
Well… not really. Maybe that’s just my psychologist side talking.
Yet you amusingly and full throatedly, appear to take issue and have contempt with my personal views on the matter. I guess we can just agree to disagree as you wage your public legal battle against Webflow and subsequently GSAP .
I don’t use GSAP or Webflow myself, so no, I’m not “waging a legal battle” against anyone.
I just happen to enjoy highlighting how certain marketing narratives operate and what their legal or strategic implications might be.
That’s not hostility, that’s curiosity with a critical lens.
And really, that’s exactly what a discussion forum is for.
Otherwise… what would we call a forum where you’re only allowed to agree enthusiastically with everyone else’s views?
That said, this back-and-forth is probably becoming a bit tiresome for other users here, I wouldn’t blame them.
I’d even go as far as to call it completely uninteresting at this point.
Maybe that’s the whole point: to divert attention from the original topic, which was simply the implications of GSAP’s new license. A discussion, in a way.
I made the discussion and continue to follow all the outcomes. We’ll see how it plays out, perhaps clarity will come forth and more news will drop. Carry on.
.
. 
I made the discussion and continue to follow all the outcomes. We’ll see how it plays out, perhaps clarity will come forth and more news will drop. Carry on.