There is Pelican Static Site Generator https://blog.getpelican.com/
- it takes directory structure with mainly *.RST files ("blog source" written by me) on my HDD and creates another directory structure there, containing mainly static *.HTML files derived from them ("blog") - basically kind of compiler
- the "blog" is then copied to some web server and served by Apache (or othe server)
- Pelican it is licensed by AGPL-3.0
- I want to create different Static Site Generator (maybe named GiGeOSP) roughly based on the same idea and doing something simmilar, but with widly different managing files, generating indexes, set of features etc. etc. but the result will be again "new blog" not much different from the previous
QUESTION: Do I understand correctly, that
- GiGeOSP must be licenced AGPL-3.0, if it uses part of Pelican
- none of "blog" and "new blog" is legally bounded to mention by which software was created and not have to link their respective sources (while it would be nice)
- the "blog" and "new blog" may have any licence I wish to use
as there is none interaction of users of the blogs with the generators?
Blog HTML code is generated just once for each version/release on my home computer, then transferred as whole to another server (by scp, or floppy discs, or CD ... does not matter how), where the generator is not even installed on the server so when user open it in web browser, it just get the static HTMl, but is not in any connection with the generator (my home computer maybe off, or even destroyed at the time)
- if I only got the basic idea, how Pelican works (collect files, use docutils to parse it and jinja to apply some templates to get result) and which general libraries it uses (docutils and Jinja) and then write GiGeOSP from scratch, can I use another licence by my choise (probably just GPL)?
- it is OK to release generator under one licence (GPL) and set of templates under other (CC-something), if the generator does not make sense without "some" templates, but not necessary those I write?