OK, thanks for the clarification; however I think the additional restrictions may not have the effect you intend.
Most commercial + open source projects tend to use a standard, well-understood license with no additional restrictions, and then offer an alternative path for commercial users that allows them to license the software under alternative terms that allow them to avoid requirements of the standard license that they might find onerous (such as the need to provide source code). This keeps things simple - it means for example I can just state the well-known license name in the LICENSE field in the OpenEmbedded recipe and it is immediately clear to people what their obligations are. (If LGPLv3 doesn't work for you on its own, I'd suggest picking another standard license that would, such as AGPLv3.)
Of course, you are free to set whatever licensing terms you wish, but the current licensing makes it hard for me to continue including.
Most commercial + open source projects tend to use a standard, well-understood license with no additional restrictions, and then offer an alternative path for commercial users that allows them to license the software under alternative terms that allow them to avoid requirements of the standard license that they might find onerous (such as the need to provide source code). This keeps things simple - it means for example I can just state the well-known license name in the LICENSE field in the OpenEmbedded recipe and it is immediately clear to people what their obligations are. (If LGPLv3 doesn't work for you on its own, I'd suggest picking another standard license that would, such as AGPLv3.)
Of course, you are free to set whatever licensing terms you wish, but the current licensing makes it hard for me to continue including.