OSNews

The only people that will have trouble are those that attempt to rip off the original authors of copyrighted code. The original authors are even allowing you to make money from their efforts (if you're actually adding some sort of service/value to their work), they're just not allowing you use their work and claim it as your own. This is the fundamental principle that copyright is based on. Here in the U.S., there are those that have no respect for the property rights of others, especially those that have more money and power than most. One only has to look at the appalling ruling by the Supreme Court that allows government entities to confiscate someone's property via eminent domain AND GIVE IT TO A DIFFERENT PRIVATE ENTITY in the name of the common good. This plus the insane idea that software can be patented is what this fight is really all about. Mathematical ideas (which is really what software is at a fundamental level), have no business being patented. I would even go so far as stating that business methods should not be receiving patents either. Patents should only be granted for physical devices, such as can openers and pharmaceutical drugs.
The notion that ideas (which is what most people place under the umbrella of "Intellectual Property") can be owned by one entity is the same sort of argument that allowed the catholic Church to lock up Galileo for claiming that the "Earth revolves around the Sun" (C).
Good luck in keeping the Thought Police from taking everything from you if these sorts of notions are allowed to remain. Kudos to the Authors of GPLV3 (& V2 for that matter,) for standing up to the would-be Totalitarians out there trying to make money illegally.
The Microsofts of the world are acting like the pool of human knowledge and ideas are a zero-sum game, which is total B.S.!

Edited 2007-07-19 13:12

if that developer was Chani from KDE, they emailed TT and got the following reply:

“We are currently evaluating the impact that licensing Qt under GPLv3 (it
is currently GPLv2 only) would have for our dual licensing model. In
particular, the in-house development clause that is new in GPLv3 will
have some impact on our business model, or at least require a certain
amount of positioning (and thus preparation).”

http://chani.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/uhoh/

So, like most I guess, TT are looking at what the ramifications are before any possible switch over (which is of course the diligent thing to do). Hopefully (well to me anyway, I know there are those who aren't exactly fans of GPL3) they make the switch in the not to distant future