The licensing policy in Qt 6 isn't really changed vs. 5 -- the change that upset the community was the commercial-only LTS releases, which started with 5.15.

KDE has been maintaining Qt 5.15 by itself with the "KDE Qt Patch Collection" since then, as the 5.15.y bugfix releases are commercial-only for a year before they get released as open source.

In Qt 6 the situation is theoretically better as you get a new 6.x feature release faster than that one-year wait period, whereas 5.15 was the end of the line for Qt 5. The commercial-only also only happens after the first two bugfix releases, so there should be no significant waiting periods without releases. If the general quality of Qt releases is sufficiently high, the Patch Collection effort may no longer be needed.

That said, The Qt Company remains a topic of concern, publishing (also on LinkedIn by employees, with lame/thin "does not necessarily represent my employer's opinion" disclaimers) lots of "why open source software is scary" content lately, apparently unaware that the only reason anyone cares about their product is its open source pedigree and credibility: https://www.qt.io/blog/is-open-source-really-free

This is probably a reaction to competition by the BSD-licensed Flutter which has seen a lot of interest from their traditional commercial audience. Doubling down on "we're less open source" as a differentiator vs. _Google_ of all companies is quite a mind-bender. Also considering licensing/open source is why Flutter is getting that attention in the first place, and that Qt could tell a fantastic story here if it wanted to.