Two sides to every coin...
I used to use KDE as my main desktop environment, because I really wasn't aware of the Licensing issues until I decided to write my ethics paper on the "Ethics of the Free Software Movement". Then I finally understood (or at least in my mind) what "free" software is all about. It is about freedom. Software is a different animal then most tangible goods such as hardware or, to use one of Stallman's examples, a sandwhich. If somebody eats my sandwhich then I am deprived of the nutrition and this definitely affects me. However, with software things are different, because it is easily copied and despite all the arguments this does not really affect anyone except the parties that are directly involved. If I give my buddy a copy, the only one that is truly affected are him and I. It is a gross exaggeration to believe that my buddy would have actually bought a copy and thus you are losing profits.
Moving on, I have noticed that there seems to be two sides or (I hate to use the word) "political" parties in the free software community (and yes, I mean free speech, not free beer) those who are conservative such as the GNU Project and strive to make software that is not only free, but software that is Licensed to protect these freedoms legally using a copyleft compatible License like the GPL (the LGPL is basically viewed as a failed endeavor, beacause so many were using it in the wrong context and missed the point entirely, hence the name change to Lesser GPL); those who are more liberal and take the view that they want or their motivations are to "make a profit". The "liberals" (sorry for the U.S. political analogy, but it seems to fit...) usually use BSD-like Licenses that permit others to make proprietary derivative works or to take your free software and include it in propreitry versions (such as QT for Winblows). Examples of such software are Apache, PHP, Zend (which uses the QPL), etc.
Now I would like to say that, from the FSF view, it is perfectly o.k. to use such BSD-like Licensed programs, but they do not recommend that you use these Licenses (I also am referring to any other License that is deemed to incompatible with the GPL) because they do not legally protect you rights by using the "copyleft".
Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot take a GPL-covered program and Qt and link them together, no matter how.
However, if you have written a program that uses Qt, and you want to release your program under the GNU GPL, you can easily do that. You can resolve the conflict for your program by adding a notice like this to it:
As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from Qt.
You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the program. Add it in the source files, after the notice that says the program is covered by the GNU GPL.
Now this doesn't exmplain much of what is wrong with the QPL, but after having looked it over these are the problems that I see:
The patch clause (although it is only an inconvenience)
When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer.
You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
The last two conditions give special rights to the author. The GPL forbids this it states that you should give others the same rights that you have. The main reason is that Troll Tech can take your code and then turn around and sell it and make a profit but you cannot. The GPL places no restriction on selling your software. Also they can take it and roll it into the windows version which is proprietary. This is my best guess why the FSF does not like the License and why its use is dsicouraged.
Finally I would like state that I take the side of the FSF. Their philosophy and motivations are different then companies like Troll Tech, Zend technologies, Netscape (mozilla project people). For the FSF and the GNU project their motivation is providing you with freedom and allowing you to share information and make a contribution to society. So if I were to go into the "business" of free software my main drive is not going to be in making a profit, although you would have to keep things a float somehow (this is probably why the GNU guys founded the FSF), it would be a matter of ethics and what I believe should be given to you when you buy software or get a copy from your buddy.
While it would be nice if Troll Tech would fix the Licensing issues I don't think that they will do it because they simply do not share the same motivations/views as the FSF. I don't think they want to give everyone the same freedoms that they have with reagrds to QT.
However, I would encourage people to help HelixCode make GNOME even better, after all it is a GNU Project so it will be truly free. One of the cool things about GNOME is you can write applications in any Language you want (there are bindings for most).