Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:
The lame article (no reference to Roy) doesn't mention the commercial
way of licensing Qt. Has that changed?
I assume not, since a change to one license does not necessarily imply a
change to others, but for an authoritative answer ... simply read it
yourself:
http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing
It seems you still have to pay for a license if you want to use Qt to
develop commercial software.
Seems reasonable, although note that the key word here is "proprietary",
not "commercial", since the GPL does not preclude deriving an income
from GPL licensed software, it is merely that /proprietary licenses/ are
incompatible.
Can anybody verify that?
Yes, see the above link to Trolltech.
As for the GPL issue:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
Hard to get comfortable with a product whose logo looks so much like
a hammer and sickle.