In theory if:
Does any commercial work/source code I write need to disclose any license, when using the LGPLv3?
I find it quite confusing to navigate the licenses, I am used to MIT, which is quite clear and straight forward.
Kind regards
I am not a layer, and I think everything is fine if you are writing a document instead of developing a library. It is just like to buy a pen and write a report.
If you’re only concearned about the output of the library, you are fine. See the GPL-FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
Exactly what I needed to know:
Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? (#GPLOutput)
In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert her own data, the copyright on the output belongs to her, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.
So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case.
You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.
In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? (#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL)
The output of a program is not, in general, covered by the copyright on the code of the program. So the license of the code of the program does not apply to the output, whether you pipe it into a file, make a screenshot, screencast, or video.
The exception would be when the program displays a full screen of text and/or art that comes from the program. Then the copyright on that text and/or art covers the output. Programs that output audio, such as video games, would also fit into this exception.
If the art/music is under the GPL, then the GPL applies when you copy it no matter how you copy it. However, fair use may still apply.
Keep in mind that some programs, particularly video games, can have artwork/audio that is licensed separately from the underlying GPLed game. In such cases, the license on the artwork/audio would dictate the terms under which video/streaming may occur. See also: Can I use the GPL for something other than software?
Now I understand a bit better and feel safe in using some of the Typst libraries such as CeTz. I come from Julia, where basically everything is MIT, that is why I care and also if one was to use the output commercially at some point in the future, that is also fine as far as I can read now.
Thanks a lot @NNS!