The way I understand software licenses.

Cool bro MIT: Free to do whatever you want as long as you include a copy of the license and you can't hold the original accountable.

fair dude Apache 2.0: Like the MIT license but more bureaucratic and few more minor things you need to keep track of.

scumbag GPL: free as in the same way that prison food is free. used by java in gotcha cases as a source of revenue because no one understands java licensing. Often used in the form of a deterrent so you never dare to open up the github page.

scumbag GPL who, realising they have no friends, becomes slightly less of a dick LGPL: But please stop using this and use our more restrictive "freedom" license.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

In retrospection to the uproar about Qt tightening its license in a move against probably its biggest user (KDE), what do you think KDE should do from now on? Should they just trust Qt? Should they take measures? Should they fork Qt? Or, in a moment of utter madness, nuke everything and go Gtk?

If I have a project wich use AGPL and LGPL Libraries at the same time, my project must to adopt AGPL or LGPL, I'm so confused.

It is legal to use some AGPL Library Methods into a LGPL code?