I have no intention of trying to argue with rms about this (or any other GPL-related) issue. But I think there's an interesting difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 that gives rise to a new line of approach to the issue.
The previous issue with Apple was, as the OP notes, GPLv2-specific. GPLv2's handling of additional obligations being placed on ...
I emailed Mr. Richard Stallman, the primary author of the GPL, for his opinion on this issue. I received the following reply:
I studied this question for a while. It is clear that that matter of distribution violates GPLv3 overall. However, I couldn't be sure
what courts might say. To work out the answer would require
a very capable lawyer.
You've already got the answer that LGPL libraries can be used in commercial software. So far, so good. There's more to this than meets the eye, though.
The thing is, PySide2 is for using the Qt framework with Python programs.
Besides the LGPL license for PySide2, you'll have to make sure that you comply with the Qt licensing terms.
The Qt licensing ...
Yes, you can distribute your software without making the source code public and without giving recipients the right to make changes to your software.
The LGPL license explicitly allows such usages of libraries/packages released under that license.
When using an LGPL library/package like PySide2, your obligations are
to allow and make it possible that ...
Is EUPL alone compatible with proprietary softwares?
Short answer: Yes, you can use an EUPL library in your proprietary application.
There are lots of information about this topic on the official website of the European Union:
EUPL and Proprietary / Commercial use
Why EUPL is NOT a viral license
The meaning of copyleft in EUPL License
Why viral ...
It is just a tool you are using. Ship it just the way you got it (binaries, documentation) and mention somewhere that you are using that tool, where it is found in whatever you ship, what changes you made --if any--, where to get the original, upstream version). The unrar license mostly says you are not allowed to base a compression program compatible with ...
This is probably allowed if you include a tool to deconstruct the APK into class files in your distribution. The LGPLv3 says in 4(d)(0) that you must:
Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the ...