The GPL defines the term Source Code as "the preferred format for making changes". This means that if your repository just contains some documentation files in a readily editable format (text, markdown, OpenOffice, MS Word, etc.) then those files count as their own source format.
if the whole work has to be published (a must) under GPLv.3 or LGPLv.3 as the used gettext.inc, gettext.php, streams.php are GNU GPLv.2 or later and Smarty is LGPLv.3 or if the whole work could be distributed also under a commercial license which is not compliant with GNU GPL principals?
As you are using a library/package under the GPLv2+ license, the ...
No, but you still might be allowed to do what you ask in the subtext.
You cannot change the license of (L)GPL - covered code, if you didn't write it.
What you can do, of course, is to agree in a contract for software development that you hand over your modifications to a 3rd party (your client) under the condition that you do not hand it over to other ...
You have written a program de novo, except that it uses a third-party library which has been made available to you under the terms of the GPLv3. You want to know if distributing your program, linked to a copy of the library, counts as distribution of the library, and what it means if it does.
Yes, it does count as distribution of the library.
Do I need to ...
Apache's position is that their v2.0 license is compatible with GPL v3.0 but only in the forward direction. That is, you can embed Apachev2-licensed software in GPL v3.0 licensed projects, but not the other way around.
what if some of the third-party libraries I use are released under some open source licence but which is not totally compatible with GPL3?
License compatibility is very black-and-white. Either a license is compatible with the GPLv3 or it is not. There is no such thing as "partially compatible".
To give some piece of mind, the MIT and BSD licenses ...
You fear that the competence will take your software as it is, and make a competing product.
But in practice this is not viable if it is under the Affero License, as by just creating a service connected to the Internet they would need to publish their software. Hence you could borrow it too.
In reality libre technology forks gets traction only if who creates ...
The requirements of the GPL are fairly simple:
Any modifications, enhancements or additional modules must be licensed under the GPL (and use only code under a GPL-compatible license).
Anyone who receives a copy of the application code has the right to receive the source code. This source code will be distributed under the terms and conditions of the GPL ...
If your installer/builder just takes the build script of the distro as input and it can work with any build script (i.e., your installer/builder does not contain knowledge that is specific to the build script of a particular distro and that can only be learned from looking at GPL-licensed code), then your installer/builder is an independent work as far as ...
Different licenses have different conditions. The GPL triggers requirements when distributing a covered work (in whole or in part, in modified or unmodified form). Additionally, the SSPL triggers requirements when offering the software as a service.
When using an SSPL-covered software as part of a software system, without offering this SSPL-covered software ...
The developers behind the Timescale database are attempting to do something in this direction with their license, see e.g. the post on their blog.
I am unable to judge, whether this has any chance of surviving in a legal court, but I think it is an interesting attempt anyway ...
According to this page , these are the most restrictive:
European Union Public License 1.1
European Union Public License 1.2
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
Open Software License 3.0
Personally, I use Open Software License 3.0 with my projects.
There is no free software / open source license that will satisfy your requirements. These licenses generally focus on the freedoms of end users, they are not trying to restrict anyone. The freedom to use software for any purpose (including to compete with your offerings) is considered essential.
Using a freedom-preserving license with the purpose of ...
The GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately doesn't hit the mark completely. Although it does mandate that users who interact with the licensed material via network are given the right to receive a copy of the source code, it doesn't mandate publishing the data.
To paraphrase the quote from the FSF given in the answer by JNic:
The license of the interpreter itself is of no concern. The interpreter and the software executed by it are independent works as far as copyright is concerned and their licenses don't affect each other.
If you want to keep your application proprietary, you cannot use any GPL-licensed library ...