license obligations through dependencies (mainly platform webviews)

[micpub]

Hello
i'd like to clarify the situation around licensing for the creation of proprietary licensed (closed source business) apps.
is it safe to do it?

things to watch out:
used crates:
file: Cargo.toml section [dependencies] - verify each crate is okay for commercial use and satisfy each license.

platform webview?
from my point of understanding - since platform webview are used (ie. dynamically linked) - these also needs to be satisfied right?
so ex. webview2 (it is MIT/BSD alike licensed) (MicrosoftEdge/WebView2Feedback#907)
but webview2 uses webkit / chromium under the hood - so these needs also to be satisfied.
and here comes the trouble.
qt lists these licenses for their qwebengine (based on chromium): https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qtwebengine-licensing.html
so we have many different kind of licenses (worst lgpl 2/2.1) - thanks god there isnt lgpl3 - will tell later why (anti tivo clause)

so there would need to be shown about dialog with the licenses in the app + you need to provide sources for the lgpl code.
if there is some lgpl3 code (not 100% sure there isnt) - then for exampe appimage is not possible - cause you run that appimage and the user doesnt have the ability to replace that dll/so file inside appimage (unless you provide some method for that?) - mobile apps also affected (android / iphone)

probably there are more other things to consider.
do you guys really thought this properly? each platform webview can have own license (with more restrictions)

many ppl create closed source apps without any knowledge about that / have no lawyer (independent coders)
can you provide some guide that helps your users to stay legit and to develop app using tauri?

or i am mistaken and we dont need to care about the licenses of the platform webviews?
it would be nice to have this written on the website about it (whats the situation)

ps. there was similar question but not quite the same: #5561