I think it would be nice to explore the differences between the different open source licenses so that you can explain who "forbids" you to use them, what they all mean and what are the consequences for your company.
For example, I would never protect the GPL library in one of our closed source programs, but L-GPL'ed could be made to work. Other licenses are also less burdened.
Also keep in mind that just because the library is published on the Internet as a GPL, quite often, if you send an email to the author (s), you may find that they have other licensing options. For example, I was interested in one GPL library, sent an e-mail to the author, and he said that he would be happy to receive licenses for closed-source projects for $ 100 a year for support and without cost of execution time (which is only $ 100 for everyone, who in our company uses the library on any number of products that we ship).
This damn sight is better than $ 3000 for the development version and $ 500 for the execution time for the commercial library, which I also considered. Admittedly, the commercial library has done much more than the open source library, but at that time we did not need all these additional features.
source share